4.7 Article

Thoracic positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose for the evaluation of residual mediastinal Hodgkin disease

Journal

BLOOD
Volume 98, Issue 10, Pages 2930-2934

Publisher

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood.V98.10.2930

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Residual mediastinal masses are frequently observed in patients with Hodgkin disease (HD) after completed therapy, and the discrimination between active tumor tissue and fibrotic residues remains a clinical challenge. We studied the diagnostic value of metabolic imaging by F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) in detecting active mediastinal disease and predicting relapse. Twenty-eight HD patients with a residual mediastinal mass of at least 2 cm after initial therapy or after salvage chemotherapy were prospectively assigned to 29 examinations with FDG PET and were evaluated as 29 subjects. Patients were monitored for at least 1 year after examination and observed for signs of relapse. Median follow-up was 28 months (range, 16 to 68 months). A PET-negative mediastinal tumor was observed in 19 subjects, of whom 16 stayed in remission and 3 relapsed. Progression or relapse occurred in 6 of 10 subjects with a positive PET, whereas 4 subjects remained in remission. The negative predictive value (negative PET result and remission) at 1 year was 95%, and the positive predictive value (positive PET result and relapse) was 60%. The disease-free survival for PET-negative and PET-positive parents at 1 year was 95% and 40%, respectively. The difference was statistically significant. A negative FDG PET indicates that an HD patient with a residual mediastinal mass is unlikely to relapse before 1 year, if ever. On the other hand, a positive PET result indicates a significantly higher risk of relapse and demands further diagnostic procedures and a closer follow-up. (C) 2001 by The American Society of Hematology.

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