Prognostic Value of FDG PET/CT in Patients with Nodal Peripheral T-Cell Lymphoma
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Patients
2.2. FDG PET/CT Acquisition
2.3. Image Analysis
2.4. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Patient Characteristics
3.2. Assessment of FDG PET/CT
3.3. Survival Analysis and Prognostic Value
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Vose, J.; Armitage, J.; Weisenburger, D. International T-cell Lymphoma Project. International peripheral T-cell and natural killer/T-cell lymphoma study: Pathology findings and clinical outcomes. J. Clin. Oncol. 2008, 26, 4124–4130. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Choi, S.M.; O’Malley, D.P. Diagnostically relevant updates to the 2017 WHO classification of lymphoid neoplasms. Ann. Diagn. Pathol. 2018, 37, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Broccoli, A.; Zinzani, P.L. Peripheral T-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified. Blood 2017, 129, 1103–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gascoyne, R.D.; Aoun, P.; Wu, D.; Chhanabhai, M.; Skinnider, B.F.; Greiner, T.C.; Morris, S.W.; Connors, J.M.; Vose, J.M.; Viswanatha, D.S.; et al. Prognostic significance of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) protein expression in adults with anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Blood 1999, 93, 3913–3921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Comprehensive Cancer Network T-Cell Lymphomas (Version 1.2023). Available online: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/t-cell.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2023).
- International Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Prognostic Factors Project. A predictive model for aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 1993, 329, 987–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piccaluga, P.P.; Agostinelli, C.; Gazzola, A.; Mannu, C.; Bacci, F.; Sabattini, E.; Pileri, S.A. Prognostic markers in peripheral T-cell lymphoma. Curr. Hematol. Malig. Rep. 2010, 5, 222–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gutierrez-Garcia, G.; Garcia-Herrera, A.; Cardesa, T.; Martinez, A.; Villamor, N.; Ghita, G.; Martinez-Trillos, A.; Colomo, L.; Setoain, X.; Rodriguez, S.; et al. Comparison of four prognostic scores in peripheral T-cell lymphoma. Ann. Oncol. 2011, 22, 397–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kostakoglu, L.; Cheson, B.D. Current role of FDG PET/CT in lymphoma. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2014, 41, 1004–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheson, B.D. PET/CT in Lymphoma: Current Overview and Future Directions. Semin. Nucl. Med. 2018, 48, 76–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheson, B.D.; Fisher, R.I.; Barrington, S.F.; Cavalli, F.; Schwartz, L.H.; Zucca, E.; Lister, T.A. Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: The Lugano classification. J. Clin. Oncol. 2014, 32, 3059–3068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weiler-Sagie, M.; Bushelev, O.; Epelbaum, R.; Dann, E.J.; Haim, N.; Avivi, I.; Ben-Barak, A.; Ben-Arie, Y.; Bar-Shalom, R.; Israel, O. (18)F-FDG avidity in lymphoma readdressed: A study of 766 patients. J. Nucl. Med. 2010, 51, 25–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, J.; Kim, D.; Kang, W.J.; Cho, H. Prognostic Value of Bone Marrow F-18 FDG Uptake in Patients with Advanced-Stage Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2020, 54, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Meignan, M.; Gallamini, A.; Haioun, C. Report on the First International Workshop on Interim-PET-Scan in Lymphoma. Leuk. Lymphoma 2009, 50, 1257–1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trotman, J.; Barrington, S.F. The role of PET in first-line treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma. Lancet Haematol. 2021, 8, e67–e79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barrington, S.F.; Trotman, J. The role of PET in the first-line treatment of the most common subtypes of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Lancet Haematol. 2021, 8, e80–e93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.J.; Li, Z.M.; Xia, X.Y.; Huang, H.Q.; Xia, Z.J.; Lin, T.Y.; Li, S.; Xia, Y.; Cai, X.Y.; Jiang, W.Q. Prognostic value of interim and posttherapy 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with mature T-cell and natural killer cell lymphomas. J. Nucl. Med. 2013, 54, 507–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cottereau, A.S.; El-Galaly, T.C.; Becker, S.; Broussais, F.; Petersen, L.J.; Bonnet, C.; Prior, J.O.; Tilly, H.; Hutchings, M.; Casasnovas, O.; et al. Predictive Value of PET Response Combined with Baseline Metabolic Tumor Volume in Peripheral T-Cell Lymphoma Patients. J. Nucl. Med. 2018, 59, 589–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moon, S.H.; Lee, A.Y.; Kim, W.S.; Kim, S.J.; Cho, Y.S.; Choe, Y.S.; Kim, B.T.; Lee, K.H. Value of interim FDG PET/CT for predicting outcome of patients with angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma. Leuk. Lymphoma 2017, 58, 1341–1348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El-Galaly, T.C.; Pedersen, M.B.; Hutchings, M.; Mylam, K.J.; Madsen, J.; Gang, A.O.; Bøgsted, M.; de Nully Brown, P.; Loft, A.; Nielsen, A.L.; et al. Utility of interim and end-of-treatment PET/CT in peripheral T-cell lymphomas: A review of 124 patients. Am. J. Hematol. 2015, 90, 975–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Comprehensive Cancer Network B-Cell Lymphomas (Version 5.2023). Available online: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/b-cell.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2023).
- Saleh, K.; Michot, J.M.; Ribrag, V. Updates in the Treatment of Peripheral T-Cell Lymphomas. J. Exp. Pharmacol. 2021, 13, 577–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kupik, O.; Akin, S.; Tuncel, M.; Eren, G.; Turker, A.; Kars, A.; Erbas, B. Comparison of clinical and PET-derived prognostic factors in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma: A special emphasis on bone marrow involvement. Nucl. Med. Commun. 2020, 41, 540–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- El-Galaly, T.C.; d’Amore, F.; Mylam, K.J.; de Nully Brown, P.; Bøgsted, M.; Bukh, A.; Specht, L.; Loft, A.; Iyer, V.; Hjorthaug, K.; et al. Routine bone marrow biopsy has little or no therapeutic consequence for positron emission tomography/computed tomography-staged treatment-naive patients with Hodgkin lymphoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2012, 30, 4508–4514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alzahrani, M.; El-Galaly, T.C.; Hutchings, M.; Hansen, J.W.; Loft, A.; Johnsen, H.E.; Iyer, V.; Wilson, D.; Sehn, L.H.; Savage, K.J.; et al. The value of routine bone marrow biopsy in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma staged with PET/CT: A Danish-Canadian study. Ann. Oncol. 2016, 27, 1095–1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Khan, A.B.; Barrington, S.F.; Mikhaeel, N.G.; Hunt, A.A.; Cameron, L.; Morris, T.; Carr, R. PET-CT staging of DLBCL accurately identifies and provides new insight into the clinical significance of bone marrow involvement. Blood 2013, 122, 61–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Koh, Y.; Lee, J.M.; Woo, G.U.; Paeng, J.C.; Youk, J.; Yoon, S.S.; Kim, I.; Kang, K.W. FDG PET for Evaluation of Bone Marrow Status in T-Cell Lymphoma. Clin. Nucl. Med. 2019, 44, 4–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pham, A.Q.; Broski, S.M.; Habermann, T.M.; Jevremovic, D.; Wiseman, G.A.; Feldman, A.L.; Maurer, M.J.; Ristow, K.M.; Witzig, T.E. Accuracy of 18-F FDG PET/CT to detect bone marrow clearance in patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma—Tissue remains the issue. Leuk. Lymphoma 2017, 58, 2342–2348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Z.; Chen, C.; Li, X.; Li, Z.; Zhang, X.; Chang, Y.; Lu, L.; Cui, Y.; Ma, Y.; Zhang, M. Evaluation of bone marrow involvement in extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma by FDG-PET/CT. Ann. Hematol. 2015, 94, 963–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cerci, J.J.; Györke, T.; Fanti, S.; Paez, D.; Meneghetti, J.C.; Redondo, F.; Celli, M.; Auewarakul, C.; Rangarajan, V.; Gujral, S.; et al. Combined PET and biopsy evidence of marrow involvement improves prognostic prediction in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. J. Nucl. Med. 2014, 55, 1591–1597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.; Zhou, M.; Liu, J.; Huang, G. Prognostic Value of Bone Marrow FDG Uptake Pattern of PET/CT in Newly Diagnosed Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma. J. Cancer 2018, 9, 1231–1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variables | No. of Patients (%) | |
---|---|---|
Age | Median (range) | 56 years (18–77) |
Sex | Male | 44 (56%) |
Female | 35 (44%) | |
ECOG PS | 0–1 | 70 (89%) |
2–4 | 9 (11%) | |
Histologic type | PTCL-NOS | 34 (43%) |
AITL | 29 (37%) | |
ALK+ ALCL | 8 (10%) | |
ALK− ALCL | 8 (10%) | |
BMB result 1 | Negative | 53 (67%) |
Positive | 25 (32%) | |
Extranodal involvement | 0–1 | 41 (52%) |
>1 | 38 (48%) | |
Ann Arbor stage | I | 2 (3%) |
II | 13 (16%) | |
III | 18 (23%) | |
IV | 46 (58%) | |
LDH level | Normal | 29 (37%) |
Elevated | 50 (63%) | |
IPI score | 0–2 | 37 (47%) |
3–5 | 42 (53%) | |
Regimen of first-line chemotherapy | ProMACE-cytaBOM | 35 (44%) |
CHOP or CHOP-like | 44 (56%) |
BMB-Negative | BMB-Positive | Total | |
---|---|---|---|
BM PET-negative | 44 (56%) | 23 (29%) | 67 (85%) |
BM PET-positive | 9 (11%) | 2 (3%) | 11 (14%) |
Total | 53 (67%) | 25 (32%) | 78 (99%) 1 |
Variables | PFS (n = 73) 1 | OS (n = 79) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
HR (95% CI) | p | HR (95% CI) | p | |
Age (≤60 vs. >60 y) | 0.8304 (0.3878–1.7778) | 0.632 | 1.2977 (0.5958–2.8267) | 0.512 |
Sex (male vs. female) | 1.1823 (0.5736–2.4368) | 0.650 | 1.3043 (0.6285–2.7069) | 0.476 |
Histologic subtype (ALK+ ALCL vs. others) | – | 0.024 * | – | 0.056 |
ECOG PS (0–1 vs. 2–4) | 0.7608 (0.2106–2.7487) | 0.677 | 2.9094 (0.6867–12.3267) | 0.147 |
Stage (I, II vs. III, IV) | 1.2740 (0.5203–3.1196) | 0.596 | 2.1161 (0.8931–5.0140) | 0.089 |
LDH (normal vs. elevated) | 1.0158 (0.4816–2.1426) | 0.967 | 1.9541 (0.9399–4.0626) | 0.073 |
BMB (negative vs. positive) | 0.8450 (0.3811–1.8735) | 0.678 | 1.2712 (0.5700–2.8349) | 0.558 |
Extranodal involvement (0–1 vs. >1) | 1.0105 (0.4879–2.0925) | 0.978 | 1.9534 (0.9438–4.0428) | 0.071 |
IPI score (0–2 vs. 3–5) | 1.2913 (0.6227–2.6777) | 0.492 | 2.7874 (1.3412–5.7929) | 0.006 * |
Regimen of chemotherapy (proMACE-cytaBOM vs. CHOP/CHOP-like) | 0.6433 (0.3128–1.3228) | 0.230 | 1.3352 (0.6469–2.7561) | 0.434 |
BM uptake in b-PET (negative vs. positive) | 2.3968 (0.7622–7.5369) | 0.135 | 4.8748 (1.4339–16.5730) | 0.011 * |
i-PET (negative vs. positive) | 3.3864 (1.2833–8.9359) | 0.014 * | 1.5582 (0.6303–3.8520) | 0.337 |
e-PET (negative vs. positive) | 1.1937 (0.2417–5.8948) | 0.828 | 19.7452 (5.2663–74.0324) | <0.001 * |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Choi, W.H.; Han, E.J.; O, J.H.; Choi, E.K.; Choi, J.-I.; Park, G.; Choi, B.-O.; Jeon, Y.-W.; Min, G.-J.; Cho, S.-G., on behalf of the Catholic University Lymphoma Group. Prognostic Value of FDG PET/CT in Patients with Nodal Peripheral T-Cell Lymphoma. Diagnostics 2023, 13, 2834. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13172834
Choi WH, Han EJ, O JH, Choi EK, Choi J-I, Park G, Choi B-O, Jeon Y-W, Min G-J, Cho S-G on behalf of the Catholic University Lymphoma Group. Prognostic Value of FDG PET/CT in Patients with Nodal Peripheral T-Cell Lymphoma. Diagnostics. 2023; 13(17):2834. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13172834
Chicago/Turabian StyleChoi, Woo Hee, Eun Ji Han, Joo Hyun O, Eun Kyoung Choi, Joon-Il Choi, Gyeongsin Park, Byung-Ock Choi, Young-Woo Jeon, Gi-June Min, and Seok-Goo Cho on behalf of the Catholic University Lymphoma Group. 2023. "Prognostic Value of FDG PET/CT in Patients with Nodal Peripheral T-Cell Lymphoma" Diagnostics 13, no. 17: 2834. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13172834
APA StyleChoi, W. H., Han, E. J., O, J. H., Choi, E. K., Choi, J. -I., Park, G., Choi, B. -O., Jeon, Y. -W., Min, G. -J., & Cho, S. -G., on behalf of the Catholic University Lymphoma Group. (2023). Prognostic Value of FDG PET/CT in Patients with Nodal Peripheral T-Cell Lymphoma. Diagnostics, 13(17), 2834. https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13172834