Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The prognostic significance of ΔSUVmax assessed by PET/CT scan after 2 cycles of chemotherapy in patients with classic Hodgkin’s lymphoma

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Hematology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of this study is to investigate the prognostic value of the percentage change of maximum standardized uptake value (ΔSUVmax) assessed by PET/CT scan after 2 cycles of chemotherapy (iPET2) in patients with classic Hodgkin’s lymphoma (CHL). ΔSUVmax was calculated as follows: the ratio of (SUVmax at baseline-SUVmax at iPET2)/SUVmax at baseline which was determined before initiation of ABVD chemotherapy. The median ΔSUVmax of 46 patients at iPET2 was 87.9% (range − 6.1–100.0%). The optimal ΔSUVmax cutoff value for progression-free survival (PFS) was 83.0% with the receiver operating characteristic curve. The area under the curve for PFS was 0.886 (95% CI 0.788–0.984, p < 0.001). The median PFS of 29 (63.0%) patients who achieved a SUVmax reduction of more than 83.0% was 34 months. The median PFS of 17 (37.0%) patients with ΔSUVmax < 83.0% was 9 months. This difference was significant (p < 0.001). Cohen’s kappa coefficient of Deauville Score (DS)- and ΔSUVmax-judged positivity was 0.752 (95% CI 0.592–0.992, p < 0.001), suggesting a strong consistency. Multivariate analysis showed that ΔSUVmax at iPET2 less than 83.0% of SUVmax at diagnosis was an independent factor predicting PFS [HR = 11.339, 95% CI 2.485–51.742, p = 0.002]. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of ΔSUVmax<83.0% was 84.6%, 81.8%, 67.7%, 93.1%, and 82.6%, which was similar to that of DS as 61.5%, 87.9%, 66.7%, 85.3%, and 80.4%, respectively. ΔSUVmax<83.0% of iPET2 effectively predicts prognosis of patients with CHL treated with ABVD.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gallamini A, Barrington SF, Biggi A, Chauvie S, Kostakoglu L, Gregianin M, Meignan M, Mikhaeel GN, Loft A, Zaucha JM, Seymour JF, Hofman MS, Rigacci L, Pulsoni A, Coleman M, Dann EJ, Trentin L, Casasnovas O, Rusconi C, Brice P, Bolis S, Viviani S, Salvi F, Luminari S, Hutchings M (2014) The predictive role of interim positron emission tomography for Hodgkin lymphoma treatment outcome is confirmed using the interpretation criteria of the Deauville five-point scale. Haematologica 99(6):1107–1113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Juweid ME, Stroobants S, Hoekstra OS, Mottaghy FM, Dietlein M, Guermazi A, Wiseman GA, Kostakoglu L, Scheidhauer K, Buck A, Naumann R, Spaepen K, Hicks RJ, Weber WA, Reske SN, Schwaiger M, Schwartz LH, Zijlstra JM, Siegel BA, Cheson BD (2007) Use of positron emission tomography for response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the Imaging Subcommittee of International Harmonization Project in Lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 25(5):571–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Straus DJ, Jung SH, Pitcher B, Kostakoglu L, Grecula JC, Hsi ED, Schoder H, Popplewell LL, Chang JE, Moskowitz CH, Wagner-Johnston N, Leonard JP, Friedberg JW, Kahl BS, Cheson BD, Bartlett NL (2018) CALGB 50604: risk-adapted treatment of nonbulky early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma based on interim PET. Blood 132(10):1013–1021

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Juweid ME, Cheson BD (2006) Positron-emission tomography and assessment of cancer therapy. N Engl J Med 354(5):496–507

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Larson SM, Schwartz LH (2006) 18F-FDG PET as a candidate for “qualified biomarker”: functional assessment of treatment response in oncology. J Nucl Med 47(6):901–903

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Casasnovas RO, Meignan M, Berriolo-Riedinger A, Bardet S, Julian A, Thieblemont C, Vera P, Bologna S, Briere J, Jais JP, Haioun C, Coiffier B, Morschhauser F (2011) SUVmax reduction improves early prognosis value of interim positron emission tomography scans in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Blood 118(1):37–43

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Cheson BD, Fisher RI, Barrington SF, Cavalli F, Schwartz LH, Zucca E, Lister TA (2014) Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: the Lugano classification. J Clin Oncol 32(27):3059–3068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Mercaldo ND, Lau KF, Zhou XH (2007) Confidence intervals for predictive values with an emphasis to case-control studies. Stat Med 26(10):2170–2183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hasenclever D, Diehl V (1998) A prognostic score for advanced Hodgkin’s disease. International Prognostic Factors Project on Advanced Hodgkin’s Disease. N Engl J Med 339(21):1506–1514

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hoppe RT, Advani RH, Ai WZ, Ambinder RF, Aoun P, Armand P, Bello CM, Benitez CM, Bierman PJ, Chen R, Dabaja B, Dean R, Forero A, Gordon LI, Hernandez-Ilizaliturri FJ, Hochberg EP, Huang J, Johnston PB, Kaminski MS, Kenkre VP, Khan N, Maddocks K, Maloney DG, Metzger M, Moore JO, Morgan D, Moskowitz CH, Mulroney C, Rabinovitch R, Seropian S, Tao R, Winter JN, Yahalom J, Burns JL, Ogba N (2018) NCCN Guidelines Insights: Hodgkin Lymphoma, Version 1.2018. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 16(3):245–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Rigacci L, Puccini B, Zinzani PL, Biggi A, Castagnoli A, Merli F, Balzarotti M, Stelitano C, Spina M, Vitolo U, Stefoni V, Levis A, Gotti M, Rosaria S, Maria SP, Bosi A, Gallamini A (2015) The prognostic value of positron emission tomography performed after two courses (INTERIM-PET) of standard therapy on treatment outcome in early stage Hodgkin lymphoma: a multicentric study by the fondazione italiana linfomi (FIL). Am J Hematol 90(6):499–503

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Hutchings M, Kostakoglu L, Zaucha JM, Malkowski B, Biggi A, Danielewicz I, Loft A, Specht L, Lamonica D, Czuczman MS, Nanni C, Zinzani PL, Diehl L, Stern R, Coleman M (2014) In vivo treatment sensitivity testing with positron emission tomography/computed tomography after one cycle of chemotherapy for Hodgkin lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 32(25):2705–2711

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Press OW, Li H, Schoder H, Straus DJ, Moskowitz CH, LeBlanc M, Rimsza LM, Bartlett NL, Evens AM, Mittra ES, LaCasce AS, Sweetenham JW, Barr PM, Fanale MA, Knopp MV, Noy A, Hsi ED, Cook JR, Lechowicz MJ, Gascoyne RD, Leonard JP, Kahl BS, Cheson BD, Fisher RI, Friedberg JW (2016) US intergroup trial of response-adapted therapy for stage III to IV Hodgkin Lymphoma using early interim fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography imaging: Southwest Oncology Group S0816. J Clin Oncol 34(17):2020–2027

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Andre M, Girinsky T, Federico M, Reman O, Fortpied C, Gotti M, Casasnovas O, Brice P, van der Maazen R, Re A, Edeline V, Ferme C, van Imhoff G, Merli F, Bouabdallah R, Sebban C, Specht L, Stamatoullas A, Delarue R, Fiaccadori V, Bellei M, Raveloarivahy T, Versari A, Hutchings M, Meignan M, Raemaekers J (2017) Early positron emission tomography response-adapted treatment in stage I and II Hodgkin Lymphoma: final results of the randomized EORTC/LYSA/FIL H10 Trial. J Clin Oncol 35(16):1786–1794

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Zinzani PL, Broccoli A, Gioia DM, Castagnoli A, Ciccone G, Evangelista A, Santoro A, Ricardi U, Bonfichi M, Brusamolino E, Rossi G, Anastasia A, Zaja F, Vitolo U, Pavone V, Pulsoni A, Rigacci L, Gaidano G, Stelitano C, Salvi F, Rusconi C, Tani M, Freilone R, Pregno P, Borsatti E, Sacchetti GM, Argnani L, Levis A (2016) Interim positron emission tomography response-adapted therapy in advanced-stage Hodgkin Lymphoma: final results of the phase II part of the HD0801 study. J Clin Oncol 34(12):1376–1385

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Johnson P, Federico M, Kirkwood A, Fossa A, Berkahn L, Carella A, D'Amore F, Enblad G, Franceschetto A, Fulham M, Luminari S, O’Doherty M, Patrick P, Roberts T, Sidra G, Stevens L, Smith P, Trotman J, Viney Z, Radford J, Barrington S (2016) adapted treatment guided by interim PET-CT scan in advanced Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. N Engl J Med 374(25):2419–2429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Yang DH, Ahn JS, Byun BH, Min JJ, Kweon SS, Chae YS, Sohn SK, Lee SW, Kim HW, Jung SH, Kim YK, Kim HJ, Bom HS, Lee JJ (2013) Interim PET/CT-based prognostic model for the treatment of diffuse large B cell lymphoma in the post-rituximab era. Ann Hematol 92(4):471–479

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Itti E, Meignan M, Berriolo-Riedinger A, Biggi A, Cashen AF, Vera P, Tilly H, Siegel BA, Gallamini A, Casasnovas RO, Haioun C (2013) An international confirmatory study of the prognostic value of early PET/CT in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: comparison between Deauville criteria and DeltaSUVmax. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40(9):1312–1320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rossi C, Kanoun S, Berriolo-Riedinger A, Dygai-Cochet I, Humbert O, Legouge C, Chretien ML, Bastie JN, Brunotte F, Casasnovas RO (2014) Interim 18F-FDG PET SUVmax reduction is superior to visual analysis in predicting outcome early in Hodgkin lymphoma patients. J Nucl Med 55(4):569–573

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Akhtari M, Milgrom SA, Pinnix CC, Reddy JP, Dong W, Smith GL, Mawlawi O, Abou YZ, Gunther J, Osborne EM, Andraos TY, Wogan CF, Rohren E, Garg N, Chuang H, Khoury JD, Oki Y, Fanale M, Dabaja BS (2018) Reclassifying patients with early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma based on functional radiographic markers at presentation. Blood 131(1):84–94

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Moskowitz AJ, Schoder H, Gavane S, Thoren KL, Fleisher M, Yahalom J, McCall SJ, Cadzin BR, Fox SY, Gerecitano J, Grewal R, Hamlin PA, Horwitz SM, Kumar A, Matasar M, Ni A, Noy A, Palomba ML, Perales MA, Portlock CS, Sauter C, Straus D, Younes A, Zelenetz AD, Moskowitz CH (2017) Prognostic significance of baseline metabolic tumor volume in relapsed and refractory Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood 130(20):2196–2203

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by National Science and Technology Major Project (2017ZX09304021).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Shenmiao Yang and Liheng Qiu contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Peking University People’s Hospital, Peking University Institute of Hematology, Xizhimen Nan Street No.11, Beijing, 100044, China

    Shenmiao Yang, Xiaojun Huang & Jin Lu

  2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Peking University People’s Hospital, Beijing, China

    Liheng Qiu & Qian Wang

Authors
  1. Shenmiao Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Liheng Qiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xiaojun Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Qian Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jin Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Qian Wang or Jin Lu.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individuals included in the study.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yang, S., Qiu, L., Huang, X. et al. The prognostic significance of ΔSUVmax assessed by PET/CT scan after 2 cycles of chemotherapy in patients with classic Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Ann Hematol 99, 293–299 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-019-03892-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-019-03892-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation