4.4 Article

Predictive value on advance hodgkin lymphoma treatment outcome of end-of treatment FDG PET/CT in the HD0607 clinical trial

期刊

HEMATOLOGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hon.3117

关键词

advanced-stage hodgkin lymphoma; deauvile criteria; end-of-treatment response assessment; PET

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study demonstrates the accuracy of end-of-treatment FDG-PET/CT in predicting treatment outcome in lymphoma patients, and confirms the appropriateness of the Lugano classification for evaluation.
The Lugano classification for response assessment in lymphoma recommends the use of the 5-point-scale Deauville Score (DS) to assess response evaluation of end-of-treatment FDG-PET/CT (eotPET) in Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL); nevertheless, there is a paucity of data on its accuracy and reproducibility. We focus here on the cohort of advanced stage IIb-IV HL patients enrolled in the HD0607 clinical trial (NCT identifier 00795613) that having had a negative interim PET performed 6 cycles of ABVD (Doxorubicin, Vinblastine, Vincristine and Dacarbazine) and then performed an eotPET. Negative patients were randomized to radiotherapy and no further treatment while positive patients were treated based on local policies. eotPET was re-evaluated independently by two readers evaluated and progression free survival was analysed (PFS). eotPET of 254 patients were analysed. The median follow-up was 43 months. The best receiver operator characteristics cut-off values to distinguish positive and negative patients was 4. The area-under-the-curve was 0.81 (95%CI, 0.70-0.91). Three-years PFS was 0.95 (95% CI 0.90-0.97) in eotPET negative and 0.22 (95% CI 0.11-0.43) in eotPET positive. DS demonstrated a good reproducibility of positivity/negativity between the readers consensus and local site evaluation where the agreement occurred on 95.0% of patients. The present study demonstrates that eotPET is an accurate tool to predict treatment outcome in HL and confirms the appropriateness of the Lugano classification for eotPET evaluation.

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

4.4
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