18F-fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography for post-treatment evaluation of malignant lymphoma: a systematic review.

Despite the increasing number of publications concerning 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for post-treatment evaluation of lymphoma and the increasing availability of this novel diagnostic modality, its exact role in response assessment after therapy is still unknown. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature regarding the diagnostic performance of dedicated FDG-PET in evaluation of first-line therapy of Hodgkin's disease and (aggressive) non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and to calculate summary estimates of its sensitivity and specificity. The databases of PubMed and Embase were searched for relevant studies up to January 2004. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of each study. As a valid reference test, histology or follow-up of at least 12 months were accepted. A meta-analysis of the reported sensitivity and specificity of each study was performed. Fifteen studies, involving 705 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The studies had several design deficiencies. The majority of studies did not describe whether the reference test was interpreted without knowledge of the FDG-PET findings. In all studies, there was a description of the spectrum of patients included, i.e. all patients for post-treatment evaluation or only patients with substantial residual masses post-treatment. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for detection of residual disease in Hodgkin's lymphoma were 84% (95% CI 71-9192%) and 90% (95% CI 84-9394%), respectively. For non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, pooled sensitivity and specificity were 72% (95% CI 61-82%), and 100% (95% CI 97-100%), respectively. FDG-PET showed reasonable sensitivity and high specificity for evaluation of first-line therapy in Hodgkin's and in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Standardization of procedures is required before implementation in clinical practice.

[1]  I. Riphagen,et al.  Update of the FDG PET search strategy , 2004, Nuclear medicine communications.

[2]  L. Kostakoglu,et al.  Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the staging and follow-up of lymphoma: is it time to shift gears? , 2000, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[3]  U. Cremerius,et al.  Positron emission tomography with 18F-FDG to detect residual disease after therapy for malignant lymphoma. , 1998, Nuclear medicine communications.

[4]  E Berry,et al.  The identification of bias in studies of the diagnostic performance of imaging modalities. , 1997, The British journal of radiology.

[5]  F. Maul,et al.  Whole body positron emission tomography in the treatment of Hodgkin disease , 2001, Cancer.

[6]  B Littenberg,et al.  A Meta-analytic Method for Summarizing Diagnostic Test Performances , 1993, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[7]  P D Bezemer,et al.  Publications on diagnostic test evaluation in family medicine journals: an optimal search strategy. , 2000, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[8]  P. Dupont,et al.  Can positron emission tomography with [18F]‐fluorodeoxyglucose after first‐line treatment distinguish Hodgkin's disease patients who need additional therapy from others in whom additional therapy would mean avoidable toxicity? , 2001, British journal of haematology.

[9]  Lotty Hooft,et al.  How to perform a comprehensive search for FDG-PET literature , 2000, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[10]  D. Margolis,et al.  Conventional imaging and 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography for predicting the clinical outcome of previously treated non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients. , 2003, Molecular imaging and biology : MIB : the official publication of the Academy of Molecular Imaging.

[11]  U. Cremerius,et al.  Prognostic significance of positron emission tomography using fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose in patients treated for malignant lymphoma , 2001, Nuklearmedizin.

[12]  J Kotzerke,et al.  Positron emission tomography with 18-fluorodeoxyglucose in the staging and follow-up of lymphoma in the chest. , 1999, Acta oncologica.

[13]  F. Gherlinzoni,et al.  The role of positron emission tomography (PET) in the management of lymphoma patients. , 1999, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[14]  H. Heimpel,et al.  Role of whole body FDG-PET imaging in predicting relapse of malignant lymphoma in patients with residual masses after treatment , 1999 .

[15]  Victor M Montori,et al.  Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines , 2002, BMC medical research methodology.

[16]  S S Gambhir,et al.  PET in oncology: will it replace the other modalities? , 1997, Seminars in nuclear medicine.

[17]  D. Bumann,et al.  [Computerized tomography and F-18-FDG positron emission tomography in staging of malignant lymphomas: a comparison]. , 1998, RöFo. Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der Röntgenstrahlen und der bildgebenden Verfahren (Print).

[18]  U. Cremerius,et al.  [Clinical value of FDG PET for therapy monitoring of malignant lymphoma--results of a retrospective study in 72 patients]. , 1999, Nuklearmedizin. Nuclear medicine.

[19]  D. Bumann,et al.  Whole-body positron emission tomography (PET) for diagnosis of residual mass in patients with lymphoma. , 1997, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[20]  JP Bunker,et al.  When and How to Assess Fast-changing Technologies: A Comparative Study of Medical Applications of Four Generic Technologies , 1998, BMJ.

[21]  Frederick Mosteller,et al.  Guidelines for Meta-analyses Evaluating Diagnostic Tests , 1994, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[22]  B Beuthien-Baumann,et al.  Prognostic value of positron emission tomography in the evaluation of post‐treatment residual mass in patients with Hodgkin's disease and non‐Hodgkin's lymphoma , 2001, British journal of haematology.

[23]  R. Buchert,et al.  18FDG-PET following treatment as valid predictor for disease-free survival in Hodgkin's lymphoma. , 2001, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[24]  G. Jerusalem,et al.  Whole-body positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose for posttreatment evaluation in Hodgkin's disease and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma has higher diagnostic and prognostic value than classical computed tomography scan imaging. , 1999, Blood.

[25]  R. Hustinx,et al.  Early detection of relapse by whole-body positron emission tomography in the follow-up of patients with Hodgkin's disease. , 2003, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[26]  A R Feinstein,et al.  Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research. Getting better but still not good. , 1995, JAMA.

[27]  G Hör,et al.  Positron emission tomography (PET) for staging and evaluation of response to treatment in patients with Hodgkin's disease. , 1999, Leukemia & lymphoma.

[28]  M. Clausen,et al.  Computertomographie und F-18-FDG-Positronen-Emissions-Tomographie im Staging maligner Lymphome: ein Vergleich , 1998 .

[29]  M. Baccarani,et al.  Advantages of Positron Emission Tomography (PET) with Respect to Computed Tomography in the Follow-up of Lymphoma Patients with Abdominal Presentation , 2002, Leukemia & lymphoma.

[30]  S D Walter,et al.  Meta-analysis of diagnostic tests with imperfect reference standards. , 1999, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[31]  N. Laird,et al.  Meta-analysis in clinical trials. , 1986, Controlled clinical trials.

[32]  Gordon H. Guyatt,et al.  Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: III. How to Use an Article About a Diagnostic Test A. Are the Results of the Study Valid? , 1994 .

[33]  P. Dupont,et al.  Prognostic value of positron emission tomography (PET) with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose ([18F]FDG) after first-line chemotherapy in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: is [18F]FDG-PET a valid alternative to conventional diagnostic methods? , 2001, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[34]  A. Buck,et al.  Whole-body positron emission tomography using fluorodeoxyglucose for staging of lymphoma: effectiveness and comparison with computed tomography , 1998, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[35]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Users' guides to the medical literature. , 1993, JAMA.

[36]  V. Diehl,et al.  Thoracic positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose for the evaluation of residual mediastinal Hodgkin disease. , 2001, Blood.

[37]  S. Hain,et al.  18-FDG-PET for the assessment of residual masses on CT following treatment of lymphomas. , 2000, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[38]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Users ' Guides to the Medical Literature : III . How to Use an Article About a Diagnostic Test : A . Are the Results of the Study Valid ? , 2022 .

[39]  C D Claussen,et al.  Comparison of 18FDG-PET with CT scans in the evaluation of patients with residual and recurrent Hodgkin's lymphoma. , 2001, Oncology reports.

[40]  R. Milne,et al.  Positron emission tomography: establishing priorities for health technology assessment. , 1999, Health technology assessment.

[41]  Ronald R Price,et al.  FDG PET in the follow-up management of patients with newly diagnosed Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma after first-line chemotherapy. , 2003, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[42]  S. Hain,et al.  18-FDG-PET as a Prognostic Indicator in the Treatment of Aggressive Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma-Comparison with CT , 2000, Leukemia & lymphoma.