4.7 Article

Combination of baseline metabolic tumour volume and early response on PET/CT improves progression-free survival prediction in DLBCL

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00259-016-3315-7

关键词

Positron emission tomography; Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; Metabolic tumour volume; Deauville score; Response assessment

资金

  1. Cancer Research UK [16463] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The study objectives were to assess the prognostic value of quantitative PET and to test whether combining baseline metabolic tumour burden with early PET response could improve predictive power in DLBCL. Methods A total of 147 patients with DLBCL underwent FDG-PET/CT scans before and after two cycles of RCHOP. Quantitative parameters including metabolic tumour volume (MTV) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG) were measured, as well as the percentage change in these parameters. Cox regression analysis was used to test the relationship between progression-free survival (PFS) and the study variables. Receiver operator characteristics (ROC) analysis determined the optimal cut-off for quantitative variables, and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed. Results The median follow-up was 3.8 years. As MTV and TLG measures correlated strongly, only MTV measures were used for multivariate analysis (MVA). Baseline MTV (MTV-0) was the only statistically significant predictor of PFS on MVA. The optimal cut-off for MTV-0 was 396 cm(3). A model combing MTV-0 and Deauville score (DS) separated the population into three distinct prognostic groups: good (MTV-0 < 400; 5-year PFS > 90 %), intermediate (MTV-0 a parts per thousand yenaEuro parts per thousand 400+ DS1-3; 5-year PFS 58.5 %) and poor (MTV-0 a parts per thousand yenaEuro parts per thousand 400+ DS4-5; 5-year PFS 29.7 %) Conclusions MTV-0 is an important prognostic factor in DLBCL. Combining MTV-0 and early PET/CT response improves the predictive power of interim PET and defines a poor-prognosis group in whom most of the events occur.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据