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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Pediatric blood & cancer 2020-09, Vol.67 (9), p.e28310-n/a |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
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 & 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 & 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 & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Pediatric blood & 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 & 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 |