2015
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2014-11-537522
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

FDG PET-CT in follicular lymphoma: a case-based evidence review

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
21
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 48 publications
2
21
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This finding is in keeping with published results from analyses of FL patients in the PRIMA [30] and FOLL05 [31], in whom PET positivity within three months of completing therapy was only able to accurately identify those patients at high risk of progression and was a more powerful prognostic indicator than FLIPI [32]. Studies in which PET has robustly predicted for a significant difference in OS have often not included patients who have received maintenance rituximab therapy [10,32], which is now an established standard of care. Our cohort were all assigned to maintenance rituximab, and this difference in the significance of post treatment 18 F-FDG-PET/CT with respect to TTNT and OS may be accounted for by the beneficial effect and markedly improved OS seen in the rituximab era.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…This finding is in keeping with published results from analyses of FL patients in the PRIMA [30] and FOLL05 [31], in whom PET positivity within three months of completing therapy was only able to accurately identify those patients at high risk of progression and was a more powerful prognostic indicator than FLIPI [32]. Studies in which PET has robustly predicted for a significant difference in OS have often not included patients who have received maintenance rituximab therapy [10,32], which is now an established standard of care. Our cohort were all assigned to maintenance rituximab, and this difference in the significance of post treatment 18 F-FDG-PET/CT with respect to TTNT and OS may be accounted for by the beneficial effect and markedly improved OS seen in the rituximab era.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…[1][2][3][4] FL is usually FDGavid, and PET identifies a greater extent of disease sites than standard CT-based staging in up to 60% of patients. [1,[5][6][7][8][9][10] PET is useful for assessing response to front-line induction therapy (IT) in FL patients, and patients with positive post-treatment PET scans are likely to relapse sooner than PET-negative patients. [1][2][3][4] Pre-treatment risk stratification models such as the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI-1) [11] and the more recent FLIPI-2, [12] do not provide sufficient guidance for timing of initial therapy or treatment approach.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These warning signs may be the occurrence of new nodal or extra-nodal lesions, progressive and rapid enlargement of pathological lymph nodes with short doubling time of the maximum diameter, bulky disease (greater diameter ≥ 7 cm) and serosal effusions [5]. These findings identified by WB-MRI may then be validated by additional 18 F-FDG-PET/CT, the capability of which in identifying the histological transformation of FL is well established [22]. Moreover, Wu et al have recently found that FL and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma could be differentiated by means of texture analysis on post-contrast T1-weighted images [41].…”
Section: Imaging Monitoring and Wwmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…18 F-FDG-PET/CT is highly sensitive for disease staging in FL, allowing better identification of nodal and extra-nodal disease locations in comparison with CT [21]. Moreover, it enables accurate detection of lymphoma transformation due to the significantly increased FDG uptake in histologically transformed areas [22]. Furthermore, it has to be stressed that, among all the i-NHL subtypes, FL has a higher risk of secondary tumours or transformation in a more aggressive lymphoma, most commonly diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [23].…”
Section: Imaging Monitoring and Wwmentioning
confidence: 99%