Can FDG‐PET replace biopsy for the evaluation of residual tumor in pediatric mature B‐cell non‐Hodgkin lymphoma?

Introduction The aim of our study is to evaluate the role of 18F‐labeled fluorodeoxy glucose positron emission tomography (18FDG‐PET) scan for the detection of viable residual mass in pediatric mature B‐cell non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). This study also aims to detect the negative predictive value, po...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Pediatric blood & cancer 2020-09, Vol.67 (9), p.e28310-n/a
Hauptverfasser: Rahman, Hany Abdel, El Semary, Samah Fathy, Ahmed, Gehad, Kenaai, Naglaa El, Omar, Walid, Zaky, Iman, Nagy, Nouran
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page n/a
container_issue 9
container_start_page e28310
container_title Pediatric blood & cancer
container_volume 67
creator Rahman, Hany Abdel
El Semary, Samah Fathy
Ahmed, Gehad
Kenaai, Naglaa El
Omar, Walid
Zaky, Iman
Nagy, Nouran
description Introduction The aim of our study is to evaluate the role of 18F‐labeled fluorodeoxy glucose positron emission tomography (18FDG‐PET) scan for the detection of viable residual mass in pediatric mature B‐cell non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). This study also aims to detect the negative predictive value, positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity, and specificity of 18FDG‐PET. Patients and methods A retrospective, cross‐sectional nonrandomized study was carried out. We included all patients with newly diagnosed mature B‐cell NHL treated at the Children Cancer Hospital Egypt during the period between July 2007 and the end of May 2018. Patients were included in the study if they (a) had a residual tumor mass, (b) underwent an 18FDG‐PET scan, and (c) had a pathologic documentation of this residual tumor. Patients were followed up till June 2019. Results Thirty‐six patients were included, for whom 39 biopsies were performed. Mean age was 7.7 years. Median follow‐up period was 52.8, range 6.1 to 117 months.18FDG‐PET scan was positive (Deauville score 3, 4, or 5) in 24 of 39 patients (61.5%), while it was negative (Deauville score 1 or 2) in 15 patients (38.5%). Positive 18FDG‐PET scan and biopsy were performed in 15 of 39 samples (38.4%; true positive, TP), while they were both negative in 13 samples (33.3%; true negative). Nine patients (23%) had positive scan and a negative biopsy (false positive), while 2 patients had negative uptake and a positive biopsy (false negative, FN)). Sensitivity of the 18FDG‐PET scan was 88.2% and specificity was 59.1%. PPV was 62.5% and NPPV was 86.6%. Conclusion Changing therapy on the basis of a positive finding alone at the time of evaluation is not recommended. FN results exist, so biopsy confirmation is required to avoid the missing refractory disease. If negative, 18FDG‐PET can replace a biopsy if the latter is inaccessible or carries an unnecessary risk.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/pbc.28310
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2421461619</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2428025706</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3530-85c3c6a435951d517e7ef3d45b422c9d27853c30060baa8df60367d6dba1cd563</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10btOwzAUgGELgaBcBl4AWWKBocWX2EkmREtLkZBggDlybAdckjjYSVE3HoFn5ElwaemAxOQzfPp15APAMUYDjBC5aHI5IAnFaAv0MItYnyEcb29mlO6Bfe9ngXLEkl2wRwmnEUlZD8xHooaT65uvj8-H8SN0uimF1DA3tvELWFgH2xcN9VyUnWiNraEtAvJGdaKEbVcFYGrYaGVE64yElWg7p-Ew9KQuS1jbOoxTq55fgysXVfNiK3F5CHYKUXp9tH4PwNNk_Dia9u_ub25HV3d9SRlF_YRJKrmIKEsZVgzHOtYFVRHLI0JkqkicMCopQhzlQiSq4IjyWHGVCywV4_QAnK26jbNvnfZtVhm_XEzU2nY-IxHBEcccp4Ge_qEz27k6bLdUCSIsRsvg-UpJZ713usgaZyrhFhlG2fIYWThG9nOMYE_WxS6vtNrI398P4GIF3k2pF_-XsofhaJX8BgdnlPs</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2428025706</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Can FDG‐PET replace biopsy for the evaluation of residual tumor in pediatric mature B‐cell non‐Hodgkin lymphoma?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Rahman, Hany Abdel ; El Semary, Samah Fathy ; Ahmed, Gehad ; Kenaai, Naglaa El ; Omar, Walid ; Zaky, Iman ; Nagy, Nouran</creator><creatorcontrib>Rahman, Hany Abdel ; El Semary, Samah Fathy ; Ahmed, Gehad ; Kenaai, Naglaa El ; Omar, Walid ; Zaky, Iman ; Nagy, Nouran</creatorcontrib><description>Introduction The aim of our study is to evaluate the role of 18F‐labeled fluorodeoxy glucose positron emission tomography (18FDG‐PET) scan for the detection of viable residual mass in pediatric mature B‐cell non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). This study also aims to detect the negative predictive value, positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity, and specificity of 18FDG‐PET. Patients and methods A retrospective, cross‐sectional nonrandomized study was carried out. We included all patients with newly diagnosed mature B‐cell NHL treated at the Children Cancer Hospital Egypt during the period between July 2007 and the end of May 2018. Patients were included in the study if they (a) had a residual tumor mass, (b) underwent an 18FDG‐PET scan, and (c) had a pathologic documentation of this residual tumor. Patients were followed up till June 2019. Results Thirty‐six patients were included, for whom 39 biopsies were performed. Mean age was 7.7 years. Median follow‐up period was 52.8, range 6.1 to 117 months.18FDG‐PET scan was positive (Deauville score 3, 4, or 5) in 24 of 39 patients (61.5%), while it was negative (Deauville score 1 or 2) in 15 patients (38.5%). Positive 18FDG‐PET scan and biopsy were performed in 15 of 39 samples (38.4%; true positive, TP), while they were both negative in 13 samples (33.3%; true negative). Nine patients (23%) had positive scan and a negative biopsy (false positive), while 2 patients had negative uptake and a positive biopsy (false negative, FN)). Sensitivity of the 18FDG‐PET scan was 88.2% and specificity was 59.1%. PPV was 62.5% and NPPV was 86.6%. Conclusion Changing therapy on the basis of a positive finding alone at the time of evaluation is not recommended. FN results exist, so biopsy confirmation is required to avoid the missing refractory disease. If negative, 18FDG‐PET can replace a biopsy if the latter is inaccessible or carries an unnecessary risk.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1545-5009</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1545-5017</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/pbc.28310</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32634295</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>18FDG‐PET ; Adolescent ; Biopsy ; Biopsy - methods ; Child ; Child, Preschool ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Egypt ; Female ; Fluorodeoxyglucose F18 ; Hematology ; Humans ; Lymphoma ; Lymphoma, B-Cell - diagnosis ; Lymphoma, B-Cell - diagnostic imaging ; Male ; mature B cell ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - diagnosis ; Neoplasm, Residual - diagnosis ; Neoplasm, Residual - diagnostic imaging ; Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma ; Oncology ; Patients ; pediatric NHL ; Pediatrics ; Positron emission tomography ; Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography - methods ; Retrospective Studies ; Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><ispartof>Pediatric blood &amp; cancer, 2020-09, Vol.67 (9), p.e28310-n/a</ispartof><rights>2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</rights><rights>2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3530-85c3c6a435951d517e7ef3d45b422c9d27853c30060baa8df60367d6dba1cd563</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3530-85c3c6a435951d517e7ef3d45b422c9d27853c30060baa8df60367d6dba1cd563</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-0845-8596</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fpbc.28310$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fpbc.28310$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,1414,27911,27912,45561,45562</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32634295$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rahman, Hany Abdel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>El Semary, Samah Fathy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ahmed, Gehad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kenaai, Naglaa El</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Omar, Walid</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zaky, Iman</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nagy, Nouran</creatorcontrib><title>Can FDG‐PET replace biopsy for the evaluation of residual tumor in pediatric mature B‐cell non‐Hodgkin lymphoma?</title><title>Pediatric blood &amp; cancer</title><addtitle>Pediatr Blood Cancer</addtitle><description>Introduction The aim of our study is to evaluate the role of 18F‐labeled fluorodeoxy glucose positron emission tomography (18FDG‐PET) scan for the detection of viable residual mass in pediatric mature B‐cell non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). This study also aims to detect the negative predictive value, positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity, and specificity of 18FDG‐PET. Patients and methods A retrospective, cross‐sectional nonrandomized study was carried out. We included all patients with newly diagnosed mature B‐cell NHL treated at the Children Cancer Hospital Egypt during the period between July 2007 and the end of May 2018. Patients were included in the study if they (a) had a residual tumor mass, (b) underwent an 18FDG‐PET scan, and (c) had a pathologic documentation of this residual tumor. Patients were followed up till June 2019. Results Thirty‐six patients were included, for whom 39 biopsies were performed. Mean age was 7.7 years. Median follow‐up period was 52.8, range 6.1 to 117 months.18FDG‐PET scan was positive (Deauville score 3, 4, or 5) in 24 of 39 patients (61.5%), while it was negative (Deauville score 1 or 2) in 15 patients (38.5%). Positive 18FDG‐PET scan and biopsy were performed in 15 of 39 samples (38.4%; true positive, TP), while they were both negative in 13 samples (33.3%; true negative). Nine patients (23%) had positive scan and a negative biopsy (false positive), while 2 patients had negative uptake and a positive biopsy (false negative, FN)). Sensitivity of the 18FDG‐PET scan was 88.2% and specificity was 59.1%. PPV was 62.5% and NPPV was 86.6%. Conclusion Changing therapy on the basis of a positive finding alone at the time of evaluation is not recommended. FN results exist, so biopsy confirmation is required to avoid the missing refractory disease. If negative, 18FDG‐PET can replace a biopsy if the latter is inaccessible or carries an unnecessary risk.</description><subject>18FDG‐PET</subject><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Biopsy</subject><subject>Biopsy - methods</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Child, Preschool</subject><subject>Cross-Sectional Studies</subject><subject>Egypt</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fluorodeoxyglucose F18</subject><subject>Hematology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Lymphoma</subject><subject>Lymphoma, B-Cell - diagnosis</subject><subject>Lymphoma, B-Cell - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>mature B cell</subject><subject>Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - diagnosis</subject><subject>Neoplasm, Residual - diagnosis</subject><subject>Neoplasm, Residual - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>pediatric NHL</subject><subject>Pediatrics</subject><subject>Positron emission tomography</subject><subject>Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography - methods</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><issn>1545-5009</issn><issn>1545-5017</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp10btOwzAUgGELgaBcBl4AWWKBocWX2EkmREtLkZBggDlybAdckjjYSVE3HoFn5ElwaemAxOQzfPp15APAMUYDjBC5aHI5IAnFaAv0MItYnyEcb29mlO6Bfe9ngXLEkl2wRwmnEUlZD8xHooaT65uvj8-H8SN0uimF1DA3tvELWFgH2xcN9VyUnWiNraEtAvJGdaKEbVcFYGrYaGVE64yElWg7p-Ew9KQuS1jbOoxTq55fgysXVfNiK3F5CHYKUXp9tH4PwNNk_Dia9u_ub25HV3d9SRlF_YRJKrmIKEsZVgzHOtYFVRHLI0JkqkicMCopQhzlQiSq4IjyWHGVCywV4_QAnK26jbNvnfZtVhm_XEzU2nY-IxHBEcccp4Ge_qEz27k6bLdUCSIsRsvg-UpJZ713usgaZyrhFhlG2fIYWThG9nOMYE_WxS6vtNrI398P4GIF3k2pF_-XsofhaJX8BgdnlPs</recordid><startdate>202009</startdate><enddate>202009</enddate><creator>Rahman, Hany Abdel</creator><creator>El Semary, Samah Fathy</creator><creator>Ahmed, Gehad</creator><creator>Kenaai, Naglaa El</creator><creator>Omar, Walid</creator><creator>Zaky, Iman</creator><creator>Nagy, Nouran</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7TO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0845-8596</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202009</creationdate><title>Can FDG‐PET replace biopsy for the evaluation of residual tumor in pediatric mature B‐cell non‐Hodgkin lymphoma?</title><author>Rahman, Hany Abdel ; El Semary, Samah Fathy ; Ahmed, Gehad ; Kenaai, Naglaa El ; Omar, Walid ; Zaky, Iman ; Nagy, Nouran</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3530-85c3c6a435951d517e7ef3d45b422c9d27853c30060baa8df60367d6dba1cd563</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>18FDG‐PET</topic><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Biopsy</topic><topic>Biopsy - methods</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Child, Preschool</topic><topic>Cross-Sectional Studies</topic><topic>Egypt</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fluorodeoxyglucose F18</topic><topic>Hematology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Lymphoma</topic><topic>Lymphoma, B-Cell - diagnosis</topic><topic>Lymphoma, B-Cell - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>mature B cell</topic><topic>Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - diagnosis</topic><topic>Neoplasm, Residual - diagnosis</topic><topic>Neoplasm, Residual - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>pediatric NHL</topic><topic>Pediatrics</topic><topic>Positron emission tomography</topic><topic>Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography - methods</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rahman, Hany Abdel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>El Semary, Samah Fathy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ahmed, Gehad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kenaai, Naglaa El</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Omar, Walid</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zaky, Iman</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nagy, Nouran</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Oncogenes and Growth Factors Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Pediatric blood &amp; cancer</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rahman, Hany Abdel</au><au>El Semary, Samah Fathy</au><au>Ahmed, Gehad</au><au>Kenaai, Naglaa El</au><au>Omar, Walid</au><au>Zaky, Iman</au><au>Nagy, Nouran</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Can FDG‐PET replace biopsy for the evaluation of residual tumor in pediatric mature B‐cell non‐Hodgkin lymphoma?</atitle><jtitle>Pediatric blood &amp; cancer</jtitle><addtitle>Pediatr Blood Cancer</addtitle><date>2020-09</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>67</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>e28310</spage><epage>n/a</epage><pages>e28310-n/a</pages><issn>1545-5009</issn><eissn>1545-5017</eissn><abstract>Introduction The aim of our study is to evaluate the role of 18F‐labeled fluorodeoxy glucose positron emission tomography (18FDG‐PET) scan for the detection of viable residual mass in pediatric mature B‐cell non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). This study also aims to detect the negative predictive value, positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity, and specificity of 18FDG‐PET. Patients and methods A retrospective, cross‐sectional nonrandomized study was carried out. We included all patients with newly diagnosed mature B‐cell NHL treated at the Children Cancer Hospital Egypt during the period between July 2007 and the end of May 2018. Patients were included in the study if they (a) had a residual tumor mass, (b) underwent an 18FDG‐PET scan, and (c) had a pathologic documentation of this residual tumor. Patients were followed up till June 2019. Results Thirty‐six patients were included, for whom 39 biopsies were performed. Mean age was 7.7 years. Median follow‐up period was 52.8, range 6.1 to 117 months.18FDG‐PET scan was positive (Deauville score 3, 4, or 5) in 24 of 39 patients (61.5%), while it was negative (Deauville score 1 or 2) in 15 patients (38.5%). Positive 18FDG‐PET scan and biopsy were performed in 15 of 39 samples (38.4%; true positive, TP), while they were both negative in 13 samples (33.3%; true negative). Nine patients (23%) had positive scan and a negative biopsy (false positive), while 2 patients had negative uptake and a positive biopsy (false negative, FN)). Sensitivity of the 18FDG‐PET scan was 88.2% and specificity was 59.1%. PPV was 62.5% and NPPV was 86.6%. Conclusion Changing therapy on the basis of a positive finding alone at the time of evaluation is not recommended. FN results exist, so biopsy confirmation is required to avoid the missing refractory disease. If negative, 18FDG‐PET can replace a biopsy if the latter is inaccessible or carries an unnecessary risk.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>32634295</pmid><doi>10.1002/pbc.28310</doi><tpages>5</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0845-8596</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1545-5009
ispartof Pediatric blood & cancer, 2020-09, Vol.67 (9), p.e28310-n/a
issn 1545-5009
1545-5017
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2421461619
source MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects 18FDG‐PET
Adolescent
Biopsy
Biopsy - methods
Child
Child, Preschool
Cross-Sectional Studies
Egypt
Female
Fluorodeoxyglucose F18
Hematology
Humans
Lymphoma
Lymphoma, B-Cell - diagnosis
Lymphoma, B-Cell - diagnostic imaging
Male
mature B cell
Neoplasm Recurrence, Local - diagnosis
Neoplasm, Residual - diagnosis
Neoplasm, Residual - diagnostic imaging
Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma
Oncology
Patients
pediatric NHL
Pediatrics
Positron emission tomography
Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography - methods
Retrospective Studies
Sensitivity and Specificity
title Can FDG‐PET replace biopsy for the evaluation of residual tumor in pediatric mature B‐cell non‐Hodgkin lymphoma?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-15T10%3A34%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Can%20FDG%E2%80%90PET%20replace%20biopsy%20for%20the%20evaluation%20of%20residual%20tumor%20in%20pediatric%20mature%20B%E2%80%90cell%20non%E2%80%90Hodgkin%20lymphoma?&rft.jtitle=Pediatric%20blood%20&%20cancer&rft.au=Rahman,%20Hany%20Abdel&rft.date=2020-09&rft.volume=67&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=e28310&rft.epage=n/a&rft.pages=e28310-n/a&rft.issn=1545-5009&rft.eissn=1545-5017&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/pbc.28310&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2428025706%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2428025706&rft_id=info:pmid/32634295&rfr_iscdi=true