4.7 Article

High incidence of false-positive PET scans in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma treated with rituximab-containing regimens

Journal

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
Volume 20, Issue 2, Pages 309-318

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdn629

Keywords

lymphoma; PET scan; rituximab

Categories

Funding

  1. United States Public Health Service-National Institutes of Health
  2. Dwoskin Family Foundation [RO1 CA109335, RO1 CA122105]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Positron emission tomography (PET) is a powerful predictor of relapse and survival in non-Hodgkin's lymphomas (NHLs) based on studies carried out in the prerituximab era. Little is known about the predictive power of PET in rituximab-treated patients. Patients and methods: Patients with aggressive B-cell NHL with baseline and follow-up PET studies were included. Clinical characteristics, PET and computed tomography scans, biopsy results, and outcomes were reviewed. PET was defined as positive if higher than mediastinal or background activity was observed. Results: In all, 51 patients (diffuse large B cell-025EF38; mantle cell lymphoma-025EF13) treated with rituximab-containing regimens were included. For 13 of 40 patients (32.5%), mid-therapy PET studies were positive and 9 of 48 patients (18.7%) had positive posttherapy PET. The positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), sensitivity (Se), and specificity (Sp) of the mid-therapy PET for predicting relapse were 33% [95% confidence interval (CI) 19% to 49%], 68% (95% CI 51% to 81%), 33% (95% CI 6% to 76%), and 68% (95% CI 49% to 82%), respectively. For posttherapy PET, the relapse PPV, NPV, Se and Sp were 19% (95% CI 9% to 33%), 81% (95% CI 67% to 91%), 13% (95% CI 0.6% to 53%), and 80%(95% CI 64% to 90%), respectively. Conclusions: Compared with previous reports in prerituximab era, addition of rituximab resulted in reduced PPV and sensitivity of mid- and posttherapy PET in patients with aggressive B-cell NHL.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available