Open AccessPrognostic Value of Interim Positron Emission Tomography in Patients With Peripheral T‐Cell Lymphoma
Author(s) -
Pellegrini Cinzia,
Argnani Lisa,
Broccoli Alessandro,
Stefoni Vittorio,
Derenzini Enrico,
Gandolfi Letizia,
Casadei Beatrice,
Maglie Roberto,
Pileri Stefano,
Zinzani Pier Luigi
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
the oncologist
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.176
H-Index - 164
eISSN - 1549-490X
pISSN - 1083-7159
DOI - 10.1634/theoncologist.2013-0463
Subject(s) - medicine , positron emission tomography , nuclear medicine , lymphoma , peripheral t cell lymphoma , standardized uptake value , pet ct , retrospective cohort study , radiology , t cell , immune system , immunology
The definition of the role of positron emission tomography (PET) in peripheral T‐cell lymphomas (PTCLs) is still under investigation. The purpose of the present observational retrospective study was to assess the early prognostic value of PET after the first three cycles of therapy (PET+3), evaluating visual data in de novo PTCL patients treated in first line with standard chemotherapy and followed by both PET and computed tomography scan. Of 27 PET+3‐negative patients, 19 also had a negative PET at the end of treatment (PET+6), whereas 8 of 27 had a positive final one; 6 of 7 PET+3‐positive patients had a positive PET+6, whereas only 1 patient had a negative PET+6. Estimated overall survival plotted according to PET+3 results showed 78.6% for negative patients and 21.4% for positive patients at 88.7 months with a significant difference. Patients with negative PET+3 had superior progression‐free survival of 72.6% compared with 16.7% of PET+3‐positive patients. At the time of this analysis, 17 of 19 (89.5%) patients with negative PET+3 are in continuous complete response (CCR) and only 1 of 7 (14.2%) patients with positive PET+3 is still in CCR. In conclusion, our results indicate that positive PET+3 is predictive of a worse outcome in PTCL, and this significant statistical difference between the two curves could be clinically informative. Larger and prospective studies and harmonization of PET reading criteria are needed.