RESISTing the Need to Quantify: Putting Qualitative FDG-PET/CT Tumor Response Assessment Criteria into Daily Practice

References

1. 1.↵
   US Cancer Statistics Working Group. US Cancer Statistics Data Visualizations Tool. 2018 https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/uscs/dataviz/index.htm. Accessed October 16, 2019
2. 2.↵
   1. Therasse P,
   2. Arbuck SG,
   3. Eisenhauer EA, et al

   . New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:205–16 doi:10.1093/jnci/92.3.205 pmid:10655437

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. 3.↵
   1. Eisenhauer EA,
   2. Therasse P,
   3. Bogaerts J, et al

   . New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009;45:228–47 doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026 pmid:19097774

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
4. 4.↵
   1. Chalian H,
   2. Töre HG,
   3. Horowitz JM, et al

   . Radiologic assessment of response to therapy: comparison of RECIST versions 1.1 and 1.0. Radiographics 2011;31:2093–105 doi:10.1148/rg.317115050 pmid:22084190

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   1. Patel CN,
   2. Goldstone AR,
   3. Chowdhury FU, et al

   . FDG PET/CT in oncology: “raising the bar”. Clin Radiol 2010;65:522–35 doi:10.1016/j.crad.2010.01.003 pmid:20541652

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   1. Sheikhbahaei S,
   2. Mena E,
   3. Pattanayak P, et al

   . Molecular imaging and precision medicine: PET/computed tomography and therapy response assessment in oncology. PET Clin 2017;12:105–18 doi:10.1016/j.cpet.2016.08.002 pmid:27863562

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   Eugene T, Corradini N, Carlier T, et al. ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT in initial staging and assessment of early response to chemotherapy of pediatric rhabdomyosarcomas. Nucl Med Commun 2012;33:1089–95 doi:10.1097/MNM.0b013e328356741f pmid:22929116

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. MacManus MP,
   2. Seymour JF,
   3. Hicks RJ.

   Overview of early response assessment in lymphoma with FDG-PET. Cancer Imaging 2007;7:10–8 doi:10.1102/1470-7330.2007.0004 pmid:17766210

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Passero VA,
   2. Branstetter BF,
   3. Shuai Y, et al

   . Response assessment by combined PET-CT scan versus CT scan alone using RECIST in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy. Ann Oncol 2010;21:2278–83 doi:10.1093/annonc/mdq226 pmid:20430907

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
10. 10.↵
    1. Tiseo M,
    2. Ippolito M,
    3. Scarlattei M, et al

    . Predictive and prognostic value of early response assessment using 18FDG-PET in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with erlotinib. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2014;73:299–307 doi:10.1007/s00280-013-2356-x pmid:24258456

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    1. Wahl RL,
    2. Jacene H,
    3. Kasamon Y, et al

    . From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med 2009;50(Suppl 1):122S–50S doi:10.2967/jnumed.108.057307 pmid:19403881

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
12. 12.↵
    1. Younes A,
    2. Hilden P,
    3. Coiffier B, et al

    . International Working Group consensus response evaluation criteria in lymphoma (RECIL 2017). Ann Oncol 2017;28:1436–47 doi:10.1093/annonc/mdx097

    CrossRef
13. 13.↵
    1. Meignan M,
    2. Gallamini A,
    3. Meignan M, et al

    . Report on the First International Workshop on interim-PET scan in lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma 2009;50:1257–60 doi:10.1080/10428190903040048 pmid:19544140

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
14. 14.↵
    1. Juweid ME,
    2. Stroobants S,
    3. Hoekstra OS, 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;25:571–78 doi:10.1200/JCO.2006.08.2305 pmid:17242397

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
15. 15.↵
    1. Johnson SA,
    2. Kumar A,
    3. Matasar MJ, et al

    . Imaging for staging and response assessment in lymphoma. Radiology 2015;276:323–38 doi:10.1148/radiol.2015142088 pmid:26203705

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Marcus C,
    2. Ciarallo A,
    3. Tahari AK, et al

    . Head and neck PET/CT: therapy response interpretation criteria (Hopkins criteria)–interreader reliability, accuracy, and survival outcomes. J Nucl Med 2014;55:1411–16 doi:10.2967/jnumed.113.136796 pmid:24947059

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
17. 17.↵
    1. Noordman BJ,
    2. Wijnhoven BPL, et al

    1. Valkema MJ

    , Noordman BJ, Wijnhoven BPL, et al. Accuracy of ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in predicting residual disease after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer. J Nucl Med 2019:pii: jnumed.118.224196 [Epub ahead of print] doi:10.2967/jnumed.118.224196 pmid:30877177

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    1. Sheikhbahaei S,
    2. Mena E,
    3. Marcus C, et al

    . ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT: therapy response assessment interpretation (Hopkins criteria) and survival outcomes in lung cancer patients. J Nucl Med 2016;57:855–60 doi:10.2967/jnumed.115.165480 pmid:26837337

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
19. 19.↵
    1. Sheikhbahaei S,
    2. Wray R,
    3. Young B, et al

    . ¹⁸F-FDG-PET/CT therapy assessment of locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: impact on management and utilization of quantitative parameters for patient survival prediction. Nucl Med Commun 2016;37:231–38 doi:10.1097/MNM.0000000000000436

    CrossRef
20. 20.↵
    1. Sole CV,
    2. Calvo FA,
    3. Alvarez E, et al

    . Metabolic and molecular relative percentage coreduction in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant therapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2016;43:1444–52 doi:10.1007/s00259-016-3313-9 pmid:26883667

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    1. Rodado-Marina S,
    2. Coronado-Poggio M,
    3. García-Vicente AM, et al

    . Clinical utility of ¹⁸F-fluorocholine positron-emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in biochemical relapse of prostate cancer after radical treatment: results of a multicentre study. BJU Int 2015;115:874–83 doi:10.1111/bju.12953 pmid:25307619

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    1. Khiewvan B,
    2. Torigian DA,
    3. Emamzadehfard S, et al

    . Update of the role of PET/CT and PET/MRI in the management of patients with cervical cancer. Hell J Nucl Med 2016;19:254–68
23. 23.↵
    1. Cheson BD,
    2. Fisher RI,
    3. Barrington SF, et al

    . Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: the Lugano classification. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:3059–68 doi:10.1200/JCO.2013.54.8800 pmid:25113753

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
24. 24.↵
    1. Kendi AT,
    2. Brandon D,
    3. Switchenko J, et al

    . Head and neck PET/CT therapy response interpretation criteria (Hopkins criteria) - external validation study. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2017;7:174–80 pmid:28913156

    PubMed
25. 25.↵
    1. Wray R,
    2. Sheikhbahaei S,
    3. Marcus C, et al

    . Therapy response assessment and patient outcomes in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: FDG PET Hopkins criteria versus residual neck node size and morphologic features. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016;207:641–47 doi:10.2214/AJR.15.15730

    CrossRef
26. 26.↵
    1. Aiken AH,
    2. Rath TJ,
    3. Anzai Y, et al

    . ACR Neck Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (NI-RADS): A White Paper of the ACR NI-RADS Committee. J Am Coll Radiol 2018;15:1097–108 doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2018.05.006 pmid:29983244

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    1. Barrington SF,
    2. Mikhaeel NG,
    3. Kostakoglu L, et al

    . Role of imaging in the staging and response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the International Conference on Malignant Lymphomas Imaging Working Group. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:3048–58 doi:10.1200/JCO.2013.53.5229 pmid:25113771

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
28. 28.↵
    1. Barrington SF,
    2. Qian W,
    3. Somer EJ, et al

    . Concordance between four European centres of PET reporting criteria designed for use in multicentre trials in Hodgkin lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;37:1824–33 doi:10.1007/s00259-010-1490-5 pmid:20505930

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    1. Barrington SF,
    2. Kluge R.

    FDG PET for therapy monitoring in Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphomas. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2017;44:97–110 doi:10.1007/s00259-017-3690-8 pmid:28411336

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    1. Mikhaeel NG,
    2. Hutchings M,
    3. Fields PA, et al

    . FDG-PET after two to three cycles of chemotherapy predicts progression-free and overall survival in high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Ann Oncol 2005;16:1514–23 doi:10.1093/annonc/mdi272 pmid:15980161

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
31. 31.↵
    1. Razek A,
    2. Shamaa S,
    3. Lattif MA, et al

    . Inter-observer agreement of whole-body computed tomography in staging and response assessment in lymphoma: The Lugano Classification. Pol J Radiol 2017;82:441–47 doi:10.12659/PJR.902370

    CrossRef
32. 32.↵
    1. Burggraaff CN,
    2. Cornelisse AC,
    3. Hoekstra OS, et al

    . Interobserver agreement of interim and end-of-treatment ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: impact on clinical practice and trials. J Nucl Med 2018;59:1831–36 doi:10.2967/jnumed.118.210807 pmid:29728515

    CrossRefPubMed
33. 33.↵
    1. Kluge R,
    2. Chavdarova L,
    3. Hoffmann M, et al

    . Inter-reader reliability of early FDG-PET/CT response assessment using the Deauville scale after 2 cycles of intensive chemotherapy (OEPA) in Hodgkin’s lymphoma. PLoS One 2016;11:e0149072 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0149072

    CrossRef
34. 34.↵
    1. Sawan P,
    2. Rebeiz K,
    3. Schoder H, et al

    . Specialized second-opinion radiology review of PET/CT examinations for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma impacts patient care and management. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017;96:e9411 doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000009411

    CrossRef
35. 35.↵
    1. Ceriani L,
    2. Barrington S,
    3. Biggi A, et al

    . Training improves the interobserver agreement of the expert positron emission tomography review panel in primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma: interim analysis in the ongoing International Extranodal Lymphoma Study Group-37 study. Hematol Oncol 2017;35:548–53 doi:10.1002/hon.2339 pmid:27545416

    CrossRefPubMed
36. 36.↵
    1. Cheson DB.

    Staging and response assessment in lymphomas: the new Lugano classification. Chin Clin Oncol 2015;4:5

    PubMed
37. 37.↵
    1. Mylam KJ,
    2. El-Galaly TC,
    3. Hutchings M, et al

    . Prognostic impact of clinician-based interpretation of ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography reports obtained in patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma 2014;55:1563–69 doi:10.3109/10428194.2013.850165 pmid:24144339

    CrossRefPubMed
38. 38.↵
    1. Cottereau AS,
    2. El-Galaly TC,
    3. Becker S, et al

    . Predictive value of PET response combined with baseline metabolic tumor volume in peripheral T-cell lymphoma patients. J Nucl Med 2018;59:589–95 doi:10.2967/jnumed.117.193946 pmid:28864629

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
39. 39.↵
    1. Albano D,
    2. Bosio G,
    3. Re A, et al

    . Metabolic behavior and prognostic value of early and end of treatment 18F-FDG PET/CT in adult Burkitt’s lymphoma: the role of Deauville and IHP criteria. Leuk Lymphoma 2019;60:326–33 doi:10.1080/10428194.2018.1482541 pmid:29966473

    CrossRefPubMed
40. 40.↵
    1. Qin C,
    2. Yang S,
    3. Sun X, et al

    . 18F-FDG PET/CT for prognostic stratification of patients with extranodal natural killer/t-cell lymphoma. Clin Nucl Med 2019;44:201–08 doi:10.1097/RLU.0000000000002440 pmid:30624268

    CrossRefPubMed
41. 41.↵
    1. Gallamini A,
    2. Barrington SF,
    3. Biggi A, et al

    . 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 2014;99:1107–13 doi:10.3324/haematol.2013.103218 pmid:24658820

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
42. 42.↵
    1. Jiang C,
    2. Su M,
    3. Kosik RO, et al

    . The Deauville 5-Point Scale improves the prognostic value of interim FDG PET/CT in extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma. Clin Nucl Med 2015;40:767–73 doi:10.1097/RLU.0000000000000892 pmid:26164182

    CrossRefPubMed
43. 43.↵
    1. Kong Y,
    2. Qu L,
    3. Li Y, et al

    . Predictive significance of a new prognostic score for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in the interim-positron emission tomography findings. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016;95:e2808. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000002808

    CrossRef
44. 44.↵
    1. Bakhshi S,
    2. Bhethanabhotla S,
    3. Kumar R, et al

    . Posttreatment PET/CT rather than interim PET/CT using Deauville criteria predicts outcome in pediatric Hodgkin lymphoma: A prospective study comparing PET/CT with conventional imaging. J Nucl Med 2017;58:577–83 doi:10.2967/jnumed.116.176511 pmid:27754902

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
45. 45.↵
    1. Robin P,
    2. Tempescul A, et al

    1. Lombion N

    , Robin P, Tempescul A, et al. Prognostic value of interim FDG PET-CT in patients older than 60 years with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated by PMitCEBO plus rituximab: comparison between Deauville 5-point scale and International Harmonization Project criteria. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2016[Epub ahead of print] pmid:27901328

    PubMed
46. 46.↵
    1. Kim J,
    2. Song YS,
    3. Lee JS, et al

    . Risk stratification of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma with interim PET-CT based on different cutoff Deauville scores. Leuk Lymphoma 2018;59:340–47 doi:10.1080/10428194.2017.1339877 pmid:28629257

    CrossRefPubMed
47. 47.↵
    1. Baratto L,
    2. Davidzon GA,
    3. Moghbel M, et al

    . Comparison between different PET and CT-based imaging interpretation criteria at interim imaging in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Clin Nucl Med 2018;43:1–8 doi:10.1097/RLU.0000000000001880 pmid:29076913

    CrossRefPubMed
48. 48.↵
    1. Yuan L,
    2. Kreissl MC,
    3. Su L, et al

    . Prognostic analysis of interim ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT in patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma after one cycle versus two cycles of chemotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2019;46:478–88 doi:10.1007/s00259-018-4198-6 pmid:30382301

    CrossRefPubMed
49. 49.↵
    1. Isik EG,
    2. Kuyumcu S,
    3. Kebudi R, et al

    . Prediction of outcome in pediatric Hodgkin lymphoma based on interpretation of ¹⁸FDG-PET/CT according to ΔSUV_max, Deauville 5-point scale and IHP criteria. Ann Nucl Med 2017;31:660–68 doi:10.1007/s12149-017-1196-x pmid:28741053

    CrossRefPubMed
50. 50.↵
    1. Kostakoglu L,
    2. Goy A,
    3. Martinelli G, et al

    . FDG-PET is prognostic and predictive for progression-free survival in relapsed follicular lymphoma: exploratory analysis of the GAUSS study. Leuk Lymphoma 2017;58:372–81 doi:10.1080/10428194.2016.1196815 pmid:27339738

    CrossRefPubMed
51. 51.↵
    1. Van den Wyngaert T,
    2. Helsen N,
    3. Carp L, et al

    . Fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography after concurrent chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced head-and-neck squamous cell cancer: The ECLYPS Study. J Clin Oncol 2017;35:3458–64 doi:10.1200/JCO.2017.73.5845 pmid:28854069

    CrossRefPubMed
52. 52.↵
    1. Taghipour M,
    2. Sheikhbahaei S,
    3. Wray R, et al

    . FDG PET/CT in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma after primary surgical resection with or without chemoradiation therapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016;206:1093–1100 doi:10.2214/AJR.15.15604 pmid:26999264

    CrossRefPubMed
53. 53.↵
    1. Aiken AH,
    2. Farley A,
    3. Baugnon KL, et al

    . Implementation of a novel surveillance template for head and neck cancer: Neck Imaging Reporting and Data System (NI-RADS). J Am Coll Radiol 2016;13:743–746.e1 doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2015.09.032 pmid:26577876

    CrossRefPubMed
54. 54.↵
    1. Krieger DA,
    2. Hudgins PA,
    3. Nayak GK, et al

    . Initial performance of NI-RADS to predict residual or recurrent head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2017;38:1193–99 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5157 pmid:28364010

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
55. 55.↵
    1. Wangaryattawanich P,
    2. Branstetter BF,
    3. Hughes M, et al

    . Negative predictive value of NI-RADS category 2 in the first posttreatment FDG-PET/CT in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2018;39:1884–88 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5767 pmid:30166429

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
56. 56.↵
    1. Rangaswamy B,
    2. Fardanesh MR,
    3. Genden EM, et al

    . Improvement in the detection of locoregional recurrence in head and neck malignancies: F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography compared to high-resolution contrast-enhanced computed tomography and endoscopic examination. Laryngoscope 2013;123:2664–69 doi:10.1002/lary.24077 pmid:23553147

    CrossRefPubMed