Establishment of a UK-wide network to facilitate the acquisition of quality assured FDG-PET data for clinical trials in lymphoma.

BACKGROUND Multicentre trials are required to determine how [fluorine-18]-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose-positron emission tomography imaging can guide cancer treatment. Consistency in quality control (QC), scan acquisition and reporting is mandatory for high-quality results, which are comparable across sites. METHODS A national positron emission tomography (PET) clinical trials network (CTN) has been set up with a 'core laboratory' to coordinate QC and interpret scans. The CTN is involved in trials in Hodgkin's lymphoma [Randomised Phase III trial to determine the role of FDG-PET Imaging in Clinical Stages IA/IIA Hodgkin's Disease (RAPID) and Randomised Phase III trial to assess response adapted therapy using FDG-PET imaging in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced Hodgkin lymphoma (RATHL)] and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [Blinded evaluation of prognostic value of FDG-PET after 2 cycles of chemotherapy in diffuse large B-cell Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma, a sub-study of the R-CHOP-21 vs R-CHOP-14 trial (R-CHOP PET substudy)]. Approval to join requires scanner validation and agreement to follow a standard QC protocol. Scans are transferred to the core laboratory and reported centrally according to predetermined criteria. RESULTS The qualification procedure was carried out on 15 scanners. All scanners were able to demonstrate the necessary quantitative accuracy, and following modification of image reconstruction where necessary, scanners demonstrated comparable recovery coefficients (RCs) indicating similar performance. The average RC (±1 standard deviation) was 0.56 ± 0.095 for the 13-mm sphere. Reports from 444 of 473 (94%) patients in RAPID and 67 of 73 (92%) patients in RATHL were available for randomisation of therapy. CONCLUSIONS The CTN has enabled consistent quality assured PET results to be obtained from multiple centres in time for clinical decision making. The results of trials will be significantly strengthened by this system.

[1]  J. Radford,et al.  Concordance between four European centres of PET reporting criteria designed for use in multicentre trials in Hodgkin lymphoma , 2010, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[2]  W. Oyen,et al.  FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0 , 2009, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[3]  R. Boellaard,et al.  Repeatability of 18F-FDG PET in a Multicenter Phase I Study of Patients with Advanced Gastrointestinal Malignancies , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[4]  Joel S. Karp,et al.  Qualification of PET Scanners for Use in Multicenter Cancer Clinical Trials: The American College of Radiology Imaging Network Experience , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[5]  Martin Hutchings,et al.  PET/CT for Therapy Response Assessment in Lymphoma , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[6]  A. Rahmouni,et al.  Prognostic Value of Interim 18F-FDG PET in Patients with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: SUV-Based Assessment at 4 Cycles of Chemotherapy , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[7]  Michel Meignan,et al.  Report on the First International Workshop on interim-PET scan in lymphoma , 2009, Leukemia & lymphoma.

[8]  Claude Nahmias,et al.  Reproducibility of Standardized Uptake Value Measurements Determined by 18F-FDG PET in Malignant Tumors , 2008, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[9]  W. Oyen,et al.  The Netherlands protocol for standardisation and quantification of FDG whole body PET studies in multi-centre trials , 2008, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[10]  J. Leonard,et al.  FDG-PET in prediction of splenectomy findings in patients with known or suspected lymphoma , 2008, Leukemia & lymphoma.

[11]  Emmanuel Itti,et al.  Early 18F-FDG PET for Prediction of Prognosis in Patients with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: SUV-Based Assessment Versus Visual Analysis , 2007, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[12]  F. d'Amore,et al.  Early interim 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography is prognostically superior to international prognostic score in advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma: a report from a joint Italian-Danish study. , 2007, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[13]  Klemens Scheidhauer,et al.  Use of positron emission tomography for response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the Imaging Subcommittee of International Harmonization Project in Lymphoma. , 2007, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[14]  N. Mikhaeel,et al.  Use of FDG-PET to monitor response to chemotherapy and radiotherapy in patients with lymphomas , 2006, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[15]  Joel Karp,et al.  Consensus recommendations for the use of 18F-FDG PET as an indicator of therapeutic response in patients in National Cancer Institute Trials. , 2006, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[16]  A. Levis,et al.  The predictive value of positron emission tomography scanning performed after two courses of standard therapy on treatment outcome in advanced stage Hodgkin's disease. , 2006, Haematologica.

[17]  Martin Hutchings,et al.  FDG-PET after two cycles of chemotherapy predicts treatment failure and progression-free survival in Hodgkin lymphoma. , 2006, Blood.

[18]  M. O'Doherty,et al.  FDG-PET after two to three cycles of chemotherapy predicts progression-free and overall survival in high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma. , 2005, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[19]  M. Blaufox,et al.  A metaanalysis of 18F‐2‐deoxy‐2‐fluoro‐D‐glucose positron emission tomography in the staging and restaging of patients with lymphoma , 2005, Cancer.

[20]  N. Mikhaeel,et al.  Prognostic value of interim FDG-PET after two or three cycles of chemotherapy in Hodgkin lymphoma. , 2005, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[21]  S. Holm,et al.  PET/CT with intravenous contrast can be used for PET attenuation correction in cancer patients , 2005, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[22]  Patrick Dupont,et al.  [18F]FDG PET monitoring of tumour response to chemotherapy: does [18F]FDG uptake correlate with the viable tumour cell fraction? , 2003, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[23]  M. O'Doherty,et al.  Does diabetes affect [18F]FDG standardised uptake values in lung cancer? , 2002, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[24]  Lilli Geworski,et al.  Multicenter comparison of calibration and cross calibration of PET scanners. , 2002, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[25]  Paul K. Marsden,et al.  Effect of corrections for blood glucose and body size on [18F]FDG PET standardised uptake values in lung cancer , 2001, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[26]  Yuan-Hwa Chou,et al.  A PET study of [11C]β-CIT-FE binding to the dopamine transporter in the monkey and human brain , 2000 .

[27]  K. Herholz,et al.  Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group. , 1999, European journal of cancer.

[28]  P. Marsden,et al.  A PET study of 18FDG uptake in soft tissue masses , 1999, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[29]  S. Evans,et al.  Recommended Standards For The Routine Performance Testing of Diagnostic X-Ray Imaging Systems , 1998 .

[30]  J. D. van der Walt,et al.  Detection of lymphoma in bone marrow by whole-body positron emission tomography. , 1998, Blood.

[31]  J. Keyes SUV: standard uptake or silly useless value? , 1995, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.