Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Role of PET/CT in malignant pediatric lymphoma

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Malignant pediatric lymphoma accounts for 10–15% of all pediatric cancers, (representing 2–3% of all malignancies), with a peak incidence between 5–9 years. Chemotherapy is usually the first and most common mode of treatment. The choice of treatment and prediction of prognosis depend on the histological type of tumor, initial staging, evaluating treatment response, and detection of early recurrence. Conventional imaging modalities have many limitations. PET/CT is more accurate, however so far the literature lacks the results of a large group of patients.

Aim of study

To report the role of PET/CT in the above-mentioned objectives at the newly established Children’s Cancer Hospital in Cairo, Egypt, which is one of the busiest dedicated pediatric oncology centers of such purposes in the world. All findings were proven by histopathology, clinically, and by clinical follow-up.

Patient population

A total of 152 patients (35 girls and 117 boys) with histologically proven malignant lymphoma (117 HD, 35 NHL) were included in this study. They were divided into four groups. Group I: 41 patients for initial staging. Group II: 51 patients for evaluating early treatment response after two to three cycles of chemotherapy. Group III: 42 patients for evaluating treatment response 4–8 weeks after the end of their treatment. Group IV: 18 patients evaluated for long-term follow-up. Results of PET/CT were compared with the other conventional imaging modalities (CIM).

Results

The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive and negative predictive values of PET/CT and CIM were as follows: In Group I: PET/CT modified staging and treatment in 11 out of 41 cases (26.8%), upstaged 5(12.2%) patients and down-staged six (14.6%) patients. Group II: 100%, 97.7%, 98%, 85.7%, 100%, respectively, for PET/CT and 83%, 66.6%, 68.6%, 25%, 96.7% for CIM respectively Group III: At the end of chemotherapy 100%, 90.9%, 92.8%, 75%, 100%, respectively, for PET/CT and 55.5%, 57.5%, 57.1%, 26.3%, 82.6% for CIM, respectively. Group IV: For long-term follow-up, all the parameters scored 100% for PET/CT, 100%, 38.4%, 72.2%, 50%, 100% for CIM, respectively.

Conclusion

PET/CT in pediatric lymphoma is more accurate than CIM. We recommend that it should be the first modality for all purposes in initial staging, evaluating treatment response and follow-up.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Oberlin O. Hodgkin’s disease. In: Voûte PA, Kalifa C, Barrett A, editors. Cancer in children. Clinical management. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University; 1998. p. 137–53.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Lanzkowski P. Hodgkin’s disease. In: Lanzkowski P, editor. Manual of pediatric hematology and oncology. 3rd ed. San Diego: Academic; 1999. p. 413–43.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Lukes R, Butler J, Hicks E. Natural history of Hodgkin’s disease as related to its pathological picture. Cancer. 1966;19:317–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Büyükpamukçu M. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. In: Voûte PA, Kalifa C, Barrett A, editors. Cancer in children. Clinical management. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University; 1998. p. 119–36.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Lanzkowski P. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. In: Lanzkowski P, editor. Manual of pediatric hematology and oncology. 3rd ed. San Diego: Academic; 1999. p. 445–69.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Harris NL, Haffe ES, Stein H, et al. A revised European—American classification of lymphoid neoplasms: a proposal from the International Lymphoma Study Group. Blood. 1994;84(5):1361–92.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Thomson AB, Wallace WHB. Treatment of paediatric Hodgkin’s disease: a balance of risks. Eur J Cancer. 2002;38:468–77.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Pinkerton CR. Review: the continuing challenge of treatment for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in children. Br J Haematol. 1999;107:220–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jadvar H, Connolly LP, Shulkin BL, Treves ST, Fischman AJ. Positron-emission tomography in pediatrics. In: Freeman LM, editor. Nuclear medicine annual 2000. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2000. p. 53–83.

    Google Scholar 

  10. O’Hara S, Donnelly LF, Coleman RE. Pediatric body applications of FDG-PET. Am J Radiol. 1999;172:1019–24.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Thomas B, Manalili E, Leonidas JC, Karayalcin G, Lipton J. 18F FDG imaging of lymphoma in children using a hybrid PET system: comparison with 67 Ga [abstract]. J Nucl Med. 2000;41(Suppl):96P.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Moody R, Shulkin B, Yanik G, Hutchinson R, Castle V. PET FDG imaging in pediatric lymphomas [abstract]. J Nucl Med. 2002;42(Suppl):39P.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Montravers F, McNamara D, Landman-Parket J, et al. 18F-FDG in childhood lymphoma: clinical utility and impact on management. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2002;29:1155–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Zinzani PL, Magagnoli M, Chierichetti F, et al. Role of positron emission tomography in the management of lymphoma patient. Ann Oncol 1999;10:1181–4.38 European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Vol. 32, No. 1, January 2005

    Google Scholar 

  15. Jerusalem G, Warland V, Najjar F, et al. Whole-body 18FDG-PET for the evaluation of patients with Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Nucl Med Commun. 1999;20:13–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kostakoglu L, Goldsmith SJ. 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;27:1564–78.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hudson MM, Krasin MJ, Kaste SC. PET imaging in pediatric Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Pediatr Radiol. 2004;34(3):190–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Carbone PP, Kaplan HS, Musshoff K, Smithers DW, Tubiana M. Report of the committee on Hodgkin’s disease staging classification. Cancer Res. 1971;31:1860–1.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Murphy SB. Current concepts in cancer: childhood non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 1978;299:1446.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kostakoglu L, Leonard JP, Kuji I, Coleman M, Vallabhajosula S, Goldsmith SJ. Comparison of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and gallium-67 scintigraphy in evaluation of lymphoma. Cancer. 2002;94:879–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Guay C, Lépine M, Verreault J, Bénard F. Prognostic value of PET using 18F-FDG in Hodgkin’s disease for posttreatment evaluation. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:1225–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte MF, et al. Whole-body positron emission tomography using 18-F fluorodeoxyglucose for post-treatment evaluation in Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has higher diagnostic and prognostic value than clinical computed tomography scan imaging. Blood. 1999;94:429–33.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte MF, et al. Early detection of relapse by whole-body positron-emission tomography in the follow-up of patients with Hodgkin’s disease. Ann Oncol. 2003;14:123–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Moog F, Bangerter M, Diederichs CG, et al. Lymphoma: role of whole-body 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose (FDG) PET in nodal staging. Radiology. 1997;203:795–800.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Moog F, Bangerter M, Diederichs CG, et al. Extranodal malignant lymphoma detection with FDG PET versus CT. Radiology. 1998;206:475–81.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Bangerter M, Moog F, Buchmann I, et al. Whole-body 2-[18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for accurate staging of Hodgkin’s disease. Ann Oncol. 1998;9:1117–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Depas G, De Barsy C, Jerusalem G, et al. 18F-FDG PET in children with lymphomas. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Vol. 32, No. 1, January 2005.

  28. Weihrauch MR, Re D, Bischoff S, et al. Whole body positron emission tomography using 18F-flurodeoxyglucose for initial staging of patients with Hodgkin’s disease. Ann Hematol. 2002;81:20–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hueltenschmidt B, Sautter-Bihl ML, Lang O, et al. Whole body positron emission tomography in the treatment of Hodgkin disease. Cancer. 2001;91:302–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Buchmann I, Reinhardt M, Elsner K, et al. 2-(fluorine-18) fluro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in the detection and staging of malignant lymphoma. A bicenter trial. Cancer. 2001;91:889–99.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Naumann R, Beuthien-Baumann B, Reiss A, et al. Substantial impact of FDG PET imaging on the therapy decision in patients with early stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Br J Cancer. 2004;90:620–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Rigacci L, Vitolo U, Nassi L, et al. On behalf of Intergruppo Italiano Linformi. Positron emission tomography in staging of patients with Hodgkin’s lymphoma. A prospective multi-centric study by the Intergruppo Italiano Linformi. Ann Hematol. 2007;86:896–903.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Burton C, Ell P, Linch D. The role of PET imaging in lymphoma. Br J Haematol. 2004;126:772–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Zinzani PL. Lymphoma: diagnosis, staging, natural history, treatment strategies. Semin Oncol. 2005;32:S4–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kostakoglu L, Coleman M, Leonard JP, et al. PET predicts prognosis after 1 cycle of chemotherapy in aggressive lymphoma and Hodgkin’s disease. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:1018–27.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Friedberg JW, Chengzi V. PET scan in staging of Lymphoma: current status. Oncologist. 2003;8:438–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. MacManus MP, Seymour JF, Hicks RJ. Overview of early response assessment in lymphoma with FDG -PET. Cancer Imaging. 2007;7:10–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Strobel K, Schaefer NG, Renner C. Cost effective therapy remission assessment in lymphoma patients using 2-(Fluorine-18) fluro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography: is an end treatment exam necessary in all patients? Ann Oncol. 2007;18:658–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Hermann S, Wormanns D, Pixberg M, Hunold A, Heindel W, Jürgens H, et al. Staging in childhood lymphoma: differences between FDG-PET and CT. Nuklearmediziner. 2005;44(1):1–7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Stauss J, Franzius C, Pfluger T, Juergens KU, Biassoni L, Begent J, et al. Guidelines for 18F-FDG PET and PET-CT imaging in paediatric oncology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:1581–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Children’s Cancer Hospital (CCH), Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt

    Raef Riad & Walid Omar

  2. Department of Pediatric Oncology, Children’s Cancer Hospital (CCH), Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt

    Iman Sidhom & Manal Zamzam

  3. Department of Radio-diagnosis, Children’s Cancer Hospital (CCH), Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt

    Iman Zaky

  4. Department of Nuclear Medicine, National Cancer Institute, Cairo, Egypt

    Magdy Kotb

  5. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Children’s Cancer Hospital (CCH), Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt

    Magdy Hafez

  6. Department of Radiology, Nuclear Medicine Section, St. Vincent`s Catholic Medical Centers of New York, New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY, USA

    Hussein Abdel-Dayem

  7. Department of Radiology, New York Medical College, Nuclear Medicine Service, St. Vincent’s Catholic Medical Centers of New York, 170 West 12th Street, Cr. 327, New York, NY, 10011, USA

    Hussein Abdel-Dayem

Authors
  1. Raef Riad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Walid Omar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Magdy Kotb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Magdy Hafez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Iman Sidhom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Manal Zamzam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Iman Zaky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Hussein Abdel-Dayem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hussein Abdel-Dayem.

Additional information

Supported by grants from The Children’s Cancer Hospital Foundation and the Cancer Institute Friends Association.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Riad, R., Omar, W., Kotb, M. et al. Role of PET/CT in malignant pediatric lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 37, 319–329 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-009-1276-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-009-1276-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation