4.7 Article

Bone involvement in patients with lymphoma: the role of FDG-PET/CT

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00259-006-0238-8

关键词

FDG-PET/CT; lymphoma; bone; bone marrow; biopsy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To evaluate the diagnostic impact and clinical significance of FDG-avid bone lesions detected by FDG-PET/CT in patients with lymphoma. Methods: The study population comprised 50 consecutive patients (mean age 41.7 +/- 15.5 years; 27 female, 23 male; 41 staging, 9 restaging) with Hodgkin's disease (n=22) or aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (n=28) in whom FDG-avid bone lesions were detected by FDG-PET/CT. All patients had either direct biopsy of the FDG-avid bone lesion (n=18), standard bone marrow biopsy at the iliac crest (BMB; n=43) or both procedures (n=11). In 15 patients, additional MRI of the bone lesions was performed. All patients underwent FDG-PET/CT after the end of treatment. All CT images of FDG-PET/CT scans were analysed independently regarding morphological osseous changes and compared with FDG-PET results. Results: In the 50 patients, 193 FDG-avid lesions were found by PET/CT. The mean standardised uptake value was 6.26 (+/- 3.22). All direct bone biopsies (n=18) of the FDG-avid lesions proved the presence of lymphomatous infiltration. BMB (n=43) was positive in 12 patients (27.9%). In CT, 32 of 193 (16.6%) lesions were detected without the PET information. No additional morphological bone infiltration was detected on CT compared with FDG-PET. All morphological bone alterations on CT scans persisted after the end of therapy. Additional PET/CT information regarding uni- or multifocal bone involvement resulted in lymphoma upstaging in 21 (42%) patients compared with the combined information provided by CT and BMB. Conclusion: In patients with FDG-avid bone lesions, FDG-PET is superior to CT alone or in combination with unilateral BMB in detecting bone marrow involvement, leading to upstaging in a relevant proportion of patients.

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