PROGNOSTIC VALUE OF 18F-FDG POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY IN THE EARLY EVALUATION OF THE EFFICIENCY OF TREATMENT IN PATIENTS WITH NON-HODGKIN LYMPHOMAS

Objective: to define the role of 18F-FDG positron emission tomography (PЕT) performed after 2–3 chemotherapy cycles in the prediction of disease prognosis and to identify a group of patients requiring more intensive treatment.

Material and methods. Seventy-one patients with non￾Hodgkin lymphoma of different histological types were examined. PET was carried out at different stages of diagnosis and primary treatment in the patients.

Results. The examinations made after 2–3 polychemotherapy (PCT) cycles indicated that 36 (50.7%) patients continued to have signs of metabolic activity of lymphoproliferative disease (a PET-positive group) and 35 (49.3%) patients were found to have no abnormal tracer accumulation foci (a PET-negative group). Twenty-nine (82.9%) patients from the PET-negative group continued to remain in complete remission throughout the follow-up (the median follow-up was 405 days). At late stages, 6 (17.1%) patients were identified to have abnormal tracer hyperfixation foci that were indicative of disease recurrence. Only 8 patients from the PET-positive group were observed to show a complete metabolic response to treatment at the end of first-line PCT. The metabolic activity of the disease was maintained in the remaining patients. The results of PET conducted at the late stages of the follow-up indicated that metabolically active tumor foci continued to be visualized in 20 (55.6%) patients and further treatment resulted in complete remission in 16 (44.4%) patients.

Conclusion. PET findings could predict the further course of the disease and differentiate more intensive treatment-requiring patients at the early stages of chemotherapy.

1. Lymphoma 2000. The first international symposium on biology and treatment of aggressive lymphomas. The stagnation seems to be over. Ann. Hematol. 2001; 80 (Suppl. 3): B1-B2.

2. Coiffier B. How to interpret the radiological abnormalities that persist after treatmentin non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma patients? Ann. Oncol. 1999; 10 (10): 1141.

3. Coiffier B., Gisselbrecht C., Vose J.M., Tilly H., Herbrecht R., Bosly A. et al. Prognostic factors in aggressive malignant lymphomas: description and validation of prognostic index that could identify patients requiring a more intensive therapy. J. Clin. Oncol. 1991; 9 (2): 211–9.

4. Rankin S.C. Assessment of response to therapy using conventional imaging. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging. 2003; 30 (1): 56–64.

5. Hill M., Cunningham D., MacVicar D., Roldan A., Husband J., McCready R. et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging in predicting relapse in residual masses after treatment of lymphoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 1993; 11(11): 2273–8.

6. Even-Sapir E., Israel O. Gallium-67 scintigraphy: a cornerstone in functional imaging of lymphoma. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging. 2003; 30 (1): 65–81.

7. Kostakoglu L., Goldsmith S.J. Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the staging and follow-up of lymphoma: is it time to shift gears? Eur. J. Nucl. Med. 2000; 27 (10): 1564–78.

8. Karam M., Novak L., Cyriac J., Ameera A., Tipu N., Nugent F. Role of fluorine-18 fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography scan in the evaluation and follow-up of patients with low-grade lymphomas. Cancer. 2006; 107 (1): 175–83.

9. Kostakoglu L., Coleman M., Leonard J.P., Kuji I., Zoe H., Stanley J.G. PET predicts prognosis after 1 cycle of chemotherapy in aggressive lymphoma and Hodgkin’s disease. J. Nucl. Med. 2002; 43 (8): 1018–27.

10. Jerusalem G., Beguin Y., Fassotte M.F., Belhocine T., Hustinx R., Rigo P. et al. Early detection of relapse by wholebody positron emission tomography in the follow-up of patients with Hodgkin’s disease. Ann. Oncol. 2003; 14 (1): 123–30.

11. Jerusalem G., Warland V., Najjar F., Paulus P., Fassotte M.F., Fillet G. et al. Whole-body 18F-FDG PET for the evaluation of patients with Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Nucl. Med. Comm. 1999; 20 (1): 13–20.

12. Friedberg J.W., Fischman A., Neuberg D., Kim H., Takvorian T., Andrea K. et al. FDG-PET is superior to gallium scintigraphy in staging and more sensitive in the follow-up of patients with de novo Hodgkin lymphoma: a blinded comparison. Leuk. Lymphoma. 2004; 45 (1): 85–92.

13. Wirth A., Seymour J.F., Hicks R.J., Ware R., Fisher R., Prince M. et al. Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography, gallium-67 scintigraphy, and conventional staging for Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Am. J. Med. 2002; 4 (112): 262–8.

14. Tsukamoto N., Kojima M., Hasegawa M., Oriuchi N., Matsushima T., Yokohama A. et al. The usefulness of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography ((18)F-FDGPET) and a comparison of (18)FFDG-PET with (67)gallium scintigraphy in the evaluation of lymphoma: relation to histologic subtypes based on the World Health Organization classification. Cancer. 2007; 110 (3): 652–9.

15. Kostakoglu L., Leonard J.P., Kuji I., Coleman M., Vallabhajosula Sh., Stanley J.G. Comparison of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and Ga-67 scintigraphy in evaluation of lymphoma. Cancer. 2002; 94 (4): 879–88.