Purpose: To evaluate the role of F-18-Fluorothymidine (FLT) PET/CT in lymphoma patients with suspected recurrent or residual disease. Methods: Adult lymphoma patients presenting with positive or equivocal F-18-FDG PET/CT at end-treatment or follow-up were prospectively addressed to an additional F-18-FLT-PET/CT. SUV max and tumour-to-background ratios (TBRs) were recorded for the most avid lesion. Biopsy or, when not available, clinical or imaging assessment were employed as standard of reference. Results: Overall 52 patients were recruited. Histology was available in 20/52 patients (38%), proliferation-index (Ki-67) in 14/20. Disease was excluded in 13/52 patients (25%) (one reactive follicular hyperplasia, five reactive-inflammatory tissues, four reactive nodes, two nodal sarcoid-like and one non-specific peri-caecal finding). FDG and FLT scans were concordant in disease restaging in 34/52 patients (65%), whereas in 18/52 cases (35%) relevant discrepancies were recorded. SUV max and TBR were significantly higher in the disease versus the disease-free group, with both tracers (p = 0.0231 and 0.0219 for FDG; p = 0.0008 and 0.0016 for FLT). FLT-SUVmax demonstrated slightly better performance in discriminating benign from malignant lesions (ROC-AUC: 0.8116 and 0.7949 for FLT-SUV max and TBR; 0.7120 and 0.7140 for FDG). Optimal FLT-SUV max cut-offs were searched: three would lead to 95% sensitivity, 81% accuracy, and 39% specificity, whereas seven led to 100%, 41%, and 56% respectively. No statistically significant correlation was observed between the two FLT indices and Ki-67. Conclusions: According to our results in a clinical setting of recurrent or residual lymphoma, FLT is not significantly superior to FDG and it is unlikely that it will be employed independently. FLT may be restricted to a few specific cases, as complementary to standard FDG imaging, to confirm a diagnosis or to define a better target to biopsy. However, due to FLT suboptimal performance, many findings would remain inconclusive, requiring further diagnostic procedures and reducing the effectiveness of performing an additional FLT scan.

Role of 18F-FLT PET/CT in suspected recurrent or residual lymphoma: final results of a pilot prospective trial

Zanoni L;Broccoli A;Lambertini A;Pellegrini C;Stefoni V;Fonti C;Nanni C;Zinzani PL;Fanti S
2019

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the role of F-18-Fluorothymidine (FLT) PET/CT in lymphoma patients with suspected recurrent or residual disease. Methods: Adult lymphoma patients presenting with positive or equivocal F-18-FDG PET/CT at end-treatment or follow-up were prospectively addressed to an additional F-18-FLT-PET/CT. SUV max and tumour-to-background ratios (TBRs) were recorded for the most avid lesion. Biopsy or, when not available, clinical or imaging assessment were employed as standard of reference. Results: Overall 52 patients were recruited. Histology was available in 20/52 patients (38%), proliferation-index (Ki-67) in 14/20. Disease was excluded in 13/52 patients (25%) (one reactive follicular hyperplasia, five reactive-inflammatory tissues, four reactive nodes, two nodal sarcoid-like and one non-specific peri-caecal finding). FDG and FLT scans were concordant in disease restaging in 34/52 patients (65%), whereas in 18/52 cases (35%) relevant discrepancies were recorded. SUV max and TBR were significantly higher in the disease versus the disease-free group, with both tracers (p = 0.0231 and 0.0219 for FDG; p = 0.0008 and 0.0016 for FLT). FLT-SUVmax demonstrated slightly better performance in discriminating benign from malignant lesions (ROC-AUC: 0.8116 and 0.7949 for FLT-SUV max and TBR; 0.7120 and 0.7140 for FDG). Optimal FLT-SUV max cut-offs were searched: three would lead to 95% sensitivity, 81% accuracy, and 39% specificity, whereas seven led to 100%, 41%, and 56% respectively. No statistically significant correlation was observed between the two FLT indices and Ki-67. Conclusions: According to our results in a clinical setting of recurrent or residual lymphoma, FLT is not significantly superior to FDG and it is unlikely that it will be employed independently. FLT may be restricted to a few specific cases, as complementary to standard FDG imaging, to confirm a diagnosis or to define a better target to biopsy. However, due to FLT suboptimal performance, many findings would remain inconclusive, requiring further diagnostic procedures and reducing the effectiveness of performing an additional FLT scan.
Zanoni L, Broccoli A, Lambertini A, Pellegrini C, Stefoni V, Lodi F, Fonti C, Nanni C, Zinzani PL, Fanti S
File in questo prodotto:
Eventuali allegati, non sono esposti

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11585/737831
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 4
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 4
social impact