Download PDF
Nuklearmedizin 2008; 47(01): 37-42
DOI: 10.3413/nukmed-0114
Originalarbeiten
Schattauer GmbH

Restaging of patients with lymphoma

Comparison of low dose CT (20 mAs) with contrast enhanced diagnostic CT in combined [18F]-FDG PET/CTRestaging von Lymphom-Patienten mit PET/CTVergleich von Niedrigdosis-CT (20 mAs) mit Kontrastmittelverstärkter diagnostischer CT
C. la Fougère
1   Departments of Nuclear Medicine
,
T. Pfluger
1   Departments of Nuclear Medicine
,
V. Schneider
1   Departments of Nuclear Medicine
,
M. Hacker
1   Departments of Nuclear Medicine
,
N. Bröckel
1   Departments of Nuclear Medicine
,
D. Morhard
2   Departments of Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany
,
W. Hundt
2   Departments of Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany
,
P. Bartenstein
1   Departments of Nuclear Medicine
,
C. Becker
2   Departments of Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany
,
R. Tiling
1   Departments of Nuclear Medicine
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received: 20 April 2007

accepted in revised form: 07 September 2007

Publication Date:
02 January 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Aim: Assessment of the clinical benefit of i.v. contrast enhanced diagnostic CT (CE-CT) compared to low dose CT with 20 mAs (LD-CT) without contrast medium in combined [18F]-FDG PET/CT examinations in restaging of patients with lymphoma. Patients, methods: 45 patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (n = 35) and Hodgkin's disease (n = 10) were included into this study. PET, LD-CT and CECT were analyzed separately as well as side-by-side. Lymphoma involvement was evaluated separately for seven regions. Indeterminate diagnoses were accepted whenever there was a discrepancy between PET and CT findings. Results for combined reading were calculated by rating indeterminate diagnoses according the suggestions of either CT or PET. Each patient had a clinical follow-up evaluation for >6 months. Results: Region-based evaluation suggested a sensitivity/specificity of 66/93% for LD-CT, 87%/91% for CE-CT, 95%/96% for PET, 94%/99% for PET/LD-CT and 96%/99% for PET/CE-CT. The data for PET/CT were obtained by rating indeterminate results according to the suggestions of PET, which turned out to be superior to CT. Lymphoma staging was changed in two patients using PET/ CE-CT as compared to PET/LD-CT. Conclusion: Overall, there was no significant difference between PET/LD-CT and PET/CE-CT. However, PET/CE-CT yielded a more precise lesion delineation than PET/LD-CT. This was due to the improved image quality of CE-CT and might lead to a more accurate investigation of lymphoma.

Zusammenfassung

Ziel: Vergleich von kombinierter PET/CT Untersuchung mit [18F]-FDG inkl. i.v.-Kontrastmittel (CE-CT) und PET/CT in Low-dose-Technik mit 20 mAs ohne Kontrastmittelgabe (LD-CT) beim Restaging von Patienten mit Morbus Hodgkin 0(HL) und Non-Hodgkin-Lymphom (NHL). Patienten, Methodik: Bei 45 Patienten mit NHL (n = 35) und HL (n=10) wurden die Einzelmodalitäten (PET, LD-CT und CE-CT) jeweils getrennt wie auch in Zusammenschau bzw. nach Fusion ausgewertet. Hierbei erfolgte eine Regionenbasierte Auswertung (zervikale, thorakale, abdominale, und pelvine Lymphknoten, extranodaler Befall, Knochenbefall, Milzbefall). Bei diskrepanten PET/CT-Befunden erfolgte entweder eine CT- oder eine PET-basierte Evaluation. Ergebnisse: Die Sensitivität bzw. Spezifität betrug 66%/93% für die LD-CT, 87%/91% für die CE-CT, 95%/96% für die PET, 94%/99% für die PET/LD-CT und 96%/99% für die PET/CE-CT. Das Staging nach Ann-Arbor veränderte sich mittels PET/CE-CT im Vergleich zu PET/LDCT bei zwei Patienten. Schlussfolgerung: Bei Lymphom- Patienten wurde kein signifikanter Unterschied zwischen PET/CE-CT und PET/LD-CT nachgewiesen. Die verminderte Bildqualität der LD-CT und fehlende i.v.-Kontrastierung erschwerten die Beurteilbarkeit unklarer [18F]-FDG-Mehranreicherungen und anatomische Ausdehnung der Herde.

Keywords

[18F]-FDG - PET/CT - Hodgkin's disease - non-Hodgkin lymphoma - low dose CT - diagnostic CT

Schlüsselwörter

[18F]-FDG - PET/CT - Morbus Hodgkin - Non-Hodgkin-Lymphom
 

  • References

  • 1 Allen-Auerbach M, Yeom K, Park J. et al. Standard PET/CT of the Chest During Shallow Breathing Is Inadequate for Comprehensive Staging of Lung Cancer. J Nucl Med 2006; 47: 298-301.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Antoch G, Freudenberg LS, Beyer T. et al. To enhance or not to enhance? 18F-FDG and CT contrast agents in dual-modality 18F-FDG PET/ CT. J Nucl Med 2004; 45 (Suppl 1) 56S-65S.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Beyer T, Antoch G, Muller S. et al. Acquisition protocol considerations for combined PET/CT imaging. J Nucl Med 2004; 45 (Suppl 1) 25S-35S.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Bockisch A, Beyer T, Antoch G. et al. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography-imaging protocols, artifacts, and pitfalls. Mol Imaging Biol 2004; 6: 188-199.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Brechtel K, Klein M, Vogel M. et al. Optimized contrast-enhanced CT protocols for diagnostic whole-body 18F-FDG PET/CT: technical aspects of single-phase versus multiphase CT imaging. J Nucl Med 2006; 47: 470-476.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Brix G, Lechel U, Glatting G. et al. Radiation exposure of patients undergoing whole-body dual- modality 18F-FDG PET/CT examinations. J Nucl Med 2005; 46: 608-613.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Carr R, Barrington SF, Madan B. et al. Detection of lymphoma in bone marrow by whole-body positron emission tomography. Blood 1998; 91: 3340-3346.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Cook GJ, Wegner EA, Fogelman I. Pitfalls and artifacts in 18FDG PET and PET/CT oncologic imaging. Semin Nucl Med 2004; 34: 122-133.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Dittmann H, Sokler M, Kollmannsberger C. et al. Comparison of 18FDG-PET with CT scans in the evaluation of patients with residual and recurrent Hodgkin's lymphoma. Oncol Rep 2001; 8: 1393-1399.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Flecknoe-Brown S. Positron emission tomography scanning in patients with lymphoma. Intern Med J 2005; 35: 137-138.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Freudenberg LS, Antoch G, Schutt P. et al. FDG- PET/CT in re-staging of patients with lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004; 31: 325-329.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Glazer GM, Gross BH, Quint LE. et al. Normal mediastinal lymph nodes: number and size according to American Thoracic Society mapping. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1985; 144: 261-265.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Goerres GW, Kamel E, Heidelberg TN. et al. PET- CT image co-registration in the thorax: influence of respiration. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2002; 29: 351-360.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Hany TF, Steinert HC, Goerres GW. et al. PET diagnostic accuracy: improvement with in-line PET-CT system: initial results. Radiology 2002; 225: 575-581.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Hermann S, Wormanns D, Pixberg M. et al. Staging in childhood lymphoma: Differences between FDG-PET and CT. Nuklearmedizin 2005; 44: 1-7.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Hernandez-Maraver D, Hernandez-Navarro F, Gomez-Leon N. et al. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography: diagnostic accuracy in lymphoma. Br J Haematol 2006; 135: 293-302.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Hicks RJ, Mac Manus MP, Seymour JF. Initial staging of lymphoma with positron emission tomography and computed tomography. Semin Nucl Med 2005; 35: 165-175.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Kim SK, Allen-Auerbach M, Goldin J. et al. Accuracy ofPET/CT in characterization of solitary pulmonary lesions. J Nucl Med 2007; 48: 214-220.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 La Fougere C, Hundt W, Brockel N. et al. Value of PET/CT versus PET and CT performed as separate investigations in patients with Hodgkin's disease and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006; 33: 1417-1425.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Lister TA, Crowther D, Sutcliffe SB. et al. Report of a committee convened to discuss the evaluation and staging of patients with Hodgkin's disease: Cotswolds meeting. J Clin Oncol 1989; 7: 1630-1636.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Moog F, Bangerter M, Diederichs CG. et al. Extra- nodal malignant lymphoma: detection with FDG PET versus CT. Radiology 1998; 206: 475-481.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Nakamoto Y, Chin BB, Kraitchman DL. et al. Effects of nonionic intravenous contrast agents at PET/CT imaging: phantom and canine studies. Radiology 2003; 227: 817-824.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Pfannenberg AC, Aschoff P, Brechtel K. et al. Low dose non-enhanced CT versus standard dose contrast-enhanced CT in combined PET/CT protocols for staging and therapy planning in non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006; 34: 36-44.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Pfannenberg AC, Aschoff P, Brechtel K. et al. Value of contrast-enhanced multi-phase CT in combined PET/CT protocols for oncological imaging. Br J Radiol 2007; 80: 437-445.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Reske SN. PET and restaging of malignant lymphoma including residual masses and relapse. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003; 30 (Suppl 1) S89-S96.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Rodriguez-Vigil B, Gomez-Leon N, Pinilla I. et al. PET/CT in lymphoma: prospective study of enhanced full-dose PET/CT versus unenhanced low- dose PET/CT. J Nucl Med 2006; 47: 1643-1648.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Schaefer NG, Hany TF, Taverna C. et al. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Hodgkin disease: coregistered FDG PET and CT at staging and restaging-- do we need contrast-enhanced CT?. Radiology 2004; 232: 823-829.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Steinert HC. PET/CT in lymphoma patients. Radiologe 2004; 44: 1060-1067.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Strobel K, Thuerl CM, Hany TF. How much intravenous contrast is needed in FDG-PET/CT?. Nuklearmedizin 2005; 44 (Suppl 1) S32-S37.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Townsend DW, Beyer T. A combined PET/CT scanner: the path to true image fusion. Br J Radiol 2002; 75: S24-S30.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Townsend DW, Cherry SR. Combining anatomy and function: the path to true image fusion. Eur Radiol 2001; 11: 1968-1974.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar