Interim 18-FDG-PET/CT failed to predict the outcome in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients treated at the diagnosis with rituximab-CHOP

Role of interim-PET (I-PET) in diffuse large B-cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) is controversial. To determine predictive value of I-PET on progression-free survival (PFS), we enrolled 88 first-line DLBCL patients treated with 6-8 R-CHOP courses regardless of I-PET. PET/CT were performed at diagnosis, after 2...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Blood 2012-03, Vol.119 (9), p.2066-2073
Hauptverfasser: Pregno, Patrizia, Chiappella, Annalisa, Bellò, Marilena, Botto, Barbara, Ferrero, Simone, Franceschetti, Silvia, Giunta, Francesca, Ladetto, Marco, Limerutti, Giorgio, Menga, Massimo, Nicolosi, Maura, Priolo, Giorgio, Puccini, Benedetta, Rigacci, Luigi, Salvi, Flavia, Vaggelli, Luca, Passera, Roberto, Bisi, Gianni, Vitolo, Umberto
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Role of interim-PET (I-PET) in diffuse large B-cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) is controversial. To determine predictive value of I-PET on progression-free survival (PFS), we enrolled 88 first-line DLBCL patients treated with 6-8 R-CHOP courses regardless of I-PET. PET/CT were performed at diagnosis, after 2 to 4 courses and at the end of therapy with central reviewing according to visual dichotomous criteria. Results are as follows: I-PET, 72% negative, 28% positive; final-PET (F-PET), 88% negative, 12% positive; clinical complete response 90%. Concordance between clinical response and F-PET negativity was 97% because of 2 false positive. With a median follow-up of 26.2 months, 2-year overall survival and PFS were 91% and 77%, respectively. Two-year PFS for I-PET and F-PET negative versus positive were as follows: I-PET 85% versus 72% (P = .0475); F-PET 83% versus 64% (P < .001). Because of a small number of events, 2 independent bivariate Cox models were tested for PFS. In model 1, F-PET contradicted I-PET (hazard ratio [HR] = 5.03, P = .015 vs 1.27, P = 691); in model 2, F-PET (HR = 4.54) and International propnostic Index score (HR = 5.36, P = .001) remained independent prognostic factors. In conclusion, positive I-PET is not predictive of a worse outcome in DLBCL; larger prospective studies and harmonization of I-PET reading criteria are needed.
ISSN:0006-4971
1528-0020
DOI:10.1182/blood-2011-06-359943