Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

18F-FDG PET/CT in paediatric lymphoma: comparison with conventional imaging

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

Abstract

Purpose

In children with Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, the ability of 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose PET/CT and conventional imaging (CI) to detect malignant lesions and predict poor lesion response to therapy was assessed and compared.

Methods

A retrospective review of findings reported on PET/CT and CI was performed using a lesion-based analysis of 16 lymph node and 8 extra-nodal regions. Lesions were defined by histopathological findings or follow-up > 6 months.

Results

The study included 209 PET/CT scans with a valid CI comparator. A total of 5,014 regions (3,342 lymph node, 1,672 extra-nodal) were analysed. PET/CT performed significantly better than CI in the detection of malignant lesions with sensitivity and specificity of 95.9 and 99.7% compared to 70.1 and 99.0%, respectively. For predicting poor lesion response to therapy, PET/CT had fewer false-positive lesions than CI. The specificity for predicting poor lesion response to treatment for PET/CT was 99.2% compared to 96.9% for CI. PET/CT was the correct modality in 86% of lesions with discordant findings.

Conclusion

PET/CT is more accurate than CI in detecting malignant lesions in childhood lymphoma and in predicting poor lesion response to treatment. In lesions with discordant findings, PET/CT results are more likely to be correct.

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. Miller E, Metser U, Avrahami G, Dvir R, Valdman D, Sira LB, et al. Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in staging and follow-up of lymphoma in pediatric and young adult patients. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2006;30(4):689–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kabickova E, Sumerauer D, Cumlivska E, Drahokoupilova E, Nekolna M, Chanova M, et al. Comparison of 18F-FDG-PET and standard procedures for the pretreatment staging of children and adolescents with Hodgkin’s disease. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006;33(9):1025–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hernandez-Pampaloni M, Takalkar A, Yu JQ, Zhuang H, Alavi A. F-18 FDG-PET imaging and correlation with CT in staging and follow-up of pediatric lymphomas. Pediatr Radiol 2006;36(6):524–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Depas G, De Barsy C, Jerusalem G, Hoyoux C, Dresse MF, Fassotte MF, et al. 18F-FDG PET in children with lymphomas. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005;32(1):31–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Montravers F, McNamara D, Landman-Parker J, Grahek D, Kerrous K, Younsi N, et al. [(18)F]FDG in childhood lymphoma: clinical utility and impact on management. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002;29(9):1155–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Meany HJ, Gidvani VK, Minniti CP. Utility of PET scans to predict disease relapse in pediatric patients with Hodgkin lymphoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2007;48(4):399–402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lopci E, Burnelli R, Ambrosini V, Nanni C, Castellucci P, Biassoni L, et al. (18)F-FDG PET in pediatric lymphomas: a comparison with conventional imaging. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 2008;23(6):681–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Riad R, Omar W, Kolb M, Hafez M, Sidhorn I, Zamzam M, et al. Role of PET/CT in malignant pediatric lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;37(2):319–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lord SJ, Irwig L, Simes RJ. When is measuring sensitivity and specificity sufficient to evaluate a diagnostic test, and when do we need randomized trials? Ann Intern Med 2006;144(11):850–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Juweid ME, Stroobants S, Hoekstra OS, Mottaghy FM, Dietlein M, Guermazi A, et al. Use of positron emission tomography for response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the Imaging Subcommittee of International Harmonization Project in Lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2007;25(5):571–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Friedman D, et al. AHOD0031: A phase III groupwide study of dose-intensive response-based chemotherapy and radiation therapy for children and adolescents with newly diagnosed intermediate risk Hodgkin disease. 2007, Children’s Oncology Group.

  13. http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/clin1.html.

  14. Howman-Giles R, London K, McCowage G, Graf N, Harvey J. Pulmonary inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor after Hodgkin’s lymphoma and application of PET imaging. Pediatr Surg Int 2008;24(8):947–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Reinhardt MJ, Herkel C, Altehoefer C, Finke J, Moser E. Computed tomography and 18F-FDG positron emission tomography for therapy control of Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma patients: when do we really need FDG-PET? Ann Oncol 2005;16(9):1524–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Terasawa T, Nihashi T, Hotta T, Nagai H. 18F-FDG PET for posttherapy assessment of Hodgkin’s disease and aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a systematic review. J Nucl Med 2008;49(1):13–21. Comment in J Nucl Med 2008;49:9–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Zijlstra JM, Lindauer-van der Werf G, Hoekstra OS, Hooft L, Riphagen II, Huijgens PC. 18F-fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography for post-treatment evaluation of malignant lymphoma: a systematic review. Haematologica 2006;91(4):522–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Partridge S, Timothy A, O’Doherty MJ, Hain SF, Rankin S, Mikhaeel G. 2-Fluorine-18-fluoro-2-deoxy-D glucose positron emission tomography in the pretreatment staging of Hodgkin’s disease: influence on patient management in a single institution. Ann Oncol 2000;11(10):1273–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Talbot JN, Haioun C, Rain JD, Meignan M, Wioland M, Misset JL, et al. [18F]-FDG positron imaging in clinical management of lymphoma patients. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2001;38(3):193–221.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Weihrauch MR, Re D, Bischoff S, Dietlein M, Scheidhauer K, Krug B, et al. Whole-body positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose for initial staging of patients with Hodgkin’s disease. Ann Hematol 2002;81(1):20–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Buchmann I, Reinhardt M, Elsner K, Bunjes D, Altehoefer C, Finke J, et al. 2-(fluorine-18)fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in the detection and staging of malignant lymphoma. A bicenter trial. Cancer 2001;91(5):889–99.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bangerter M, Moog F, Buchmann I, Kotzerke J, Griesshammer M, Hafner M, 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(10):1117–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wegner EA, Barrington SF, Kingston JE, Robinson RO, Ferner RE, Taj M, et al. The impact of PET scanning on management of paediatric oncology patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2005;32(1):23–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Clin Radiol 2003;58(8):575–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Kevin London was gratefully supported by The Cancer and Research Support Fund, Oncology Unit, The Children’s’ Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, Australia.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, NSW, 2145, Australia

    Kevin London & Robert Howman-Giles

  2. Oncology Unit, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, Australia

    Siobhan Cross & Luciano Dalla-Pozza

  3. Department of Medical Imaging, The Children’s Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, Australia

    Ella Onikul

  4. Discipline of Imaging, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    Robert Howman-Giles

Authors
  1. Kevin London
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Siobhan Cross
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ella Onikul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Luciano Dalla-Pozza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Robert Howman-Giles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kevin London.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

London, K., Cross, S., Onikul, E. et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT in paediatric lymphoma: comparison with conventional imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38, 274–284 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-010-1619-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-010-1619-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation