Premium
Hodgkin lymphoma patients in first remission: routine positron emission tomography/computerized tomography imaging is not superior to clinical follow‐up for patients with no residual mass
Author(s) -
Dann Eldad J.,
Berkahn Leanne,
Mashiach Tatiana,
Frumer Michael,
Agur Ariel,
McDiarmid Bridgett,
BarShalom Rachel,
Paltiel Ora,
Goldschmidt Neta
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
british journal of haematology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.907
H-Index - 186
eISSN - 1365-2141
pISSN - 0007-1048
DOI - 10.1111/bjh.12687
Subject(s) - medicine , positron emission tomography , lymphoma , retrospective cohort study , radiology , chemotherapy , nuclear medicine
Summary There is no consensus regarding optimal follow‐up mode for Hodgkin lymphoma ( HL ) patients that achieve complete remission following chemotherapy or combined chemo‐ and radiation therapy. Several studies demonstrated high sensitivity of positron emission tomography/computerized tomography ( PET / CT ) in detecting disease progression; however, these techniques are currently not recommended for routine follow‐up. This retrospective study conducted in two Israeli ( N = 291) and one New Zealand academic centres ( N = 77), compared a group of HL patients, followed‐up with routine imaging every 6 months during the first 2 years after achieving remission, once in the third year, with additional dedicated studies performed due to symptoms or physical findings (Group I) to a group of patients without residual masses who underwent clinically‐based surveillance with dedicated imaging upon relapse suspicion (Group II ). Five‐year overall survival ( OS ) was 94% and median time to relapse was 8·6 months for both modes. Relapse rates in Groups I and II were 13% and 9%, respectively. During the first 3 years of follow‐up, 47·5 and 4·7 studies were performed per detected relapse in Groups I and II , respectively. The current study demonstrated no benefit in either progression‐free survival ( PFS ) or OS in HL patients followed by routine imaging versus clinical follow‐up. The cost was 10 times higher for routine imaging.