18F-FDG PET/TC con contraste intravenoso en el seguimiento estandarizado de pacientes con linfoma / 18F-FDG PET/contrast enhanced CT in the standard follow-up of patients with lymphoma

Objetivo. Valorar la capacidad diagnóstica de la 18F-FDG PET/TC con contraste intravenoso (PET/TCciv) en la detección de recidivas asintomáticas de pacientes con linfoma. Material y métodos. Se realizó una PET/TCciv en pacientes con linfoma para seguimiento estandarizado y en remisión completa clínica. Tanto la 18F-FDG PET como la TCciv fueron evaluadas de forma independiente por 2 observadores y clasificadas como positiva o negativa para recurrencia. Adicionalmente se realizó una valoración combinada de ambas exploraciones. El diagnóstico final se estableció por análisis histopatológico o seguimiento clínico superior a 6 meses. Se calcularon los parámetros diagnósticos estadísticos y los niveles de concordancia entre ambas técnicas diagnósticas. Resultados. Se analizaron un total de 114 exploraciones pertenecientes a 90 pacientes. Solo 4 pacientes fueron diagnosticados de recurrencia asintomática durante el seguimiento. La 18F-FDG PET/TCciv, la 18F-FDG PET y la TCciv mostraron asociación con el diagnóstico final (p=0,002 y χ2=11,96; p<0,001 y χ2=15,60; p=0,001 y χ2=11,96, respectivamente). La concordancia entre la 18F-FDG PET y la TCciv fue moderada/alta y significativa (kappa=0,672; p<0,001). Se obtuvo una sensibilidad y especificidad del 50 y 88% para la 18F-FDG PET/TCciv, del 50 y 93% para la 18F-FDG PET y del 50 y 91% para la TCciv. Conclusión. El uso combinado de la 18F-FDG PET/TCciv no ofreció ventaja con respecto a ambas técnicas por separado en la detección de recidiva asintomática por linfoma

Aim. To assess the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/contrast enhanced computed tomography (ceCT) in the detection of asymptomatic recurrences in patients with lymphoma. Material and methods. Patients with lymphoma and clinical complete remission underwent 18F-FDG PET/ceCT for standard follow-up.18F-FDG PET and ceCT were evaluated blindly by two independent observers, and classified as positive or negative for recurrence. Additionally a combined evaluation of both techniques was performed. The final diagnosis was established by histopathological analysis or a clinical follow-up longer than 6 months. Statistical diagnostic parameters and concordance levels between both diagnostic techniques were calculated. Results. A total of 114 explorations on 90 patients were analyzed. Only 4 patients were diagnosed as asymptomatic recurrence during the follow-up. 18F-FDG PET/ceCT, 18F-FDG PET and ceCT showed an association with the final diagnosis (p=0.002 and χ2=11.96; p<0.001 and χ2=15.60; p=0.001 and χ2=11.96, respectively). The concordance between 18F-FDG PET and ceCT was moderate/high and significant (kappa=0.672; p<0.001). A sensitivity and specificity of 50% and 88% was obtained for the 18F-FDG PET/ceCT civ, 50% and 93% for the 18F-FDG PET, and 50% and 91% for the ceCT. Conclusion. The combined use of 18F-FDG PET/ceCT did not offer any advantage compared to any isolated diagnostic technique in the detection of asymptomatic lymphoma recurrence

18F-FDG PET/contrast enhanced CT in the standard follow-up of patients with lymphoma. / 18F-FDG PET/TC con contraste intravenoso en el seguimiento estandarizado de pacientes con linfoma.

AIM: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG PET/contrast enhanced computed tomography (ceCT) in the detection of asymptomatic recurrences in patients with lymphoma. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with lymphoma and clinical complete remission underwent 18F-FDG PET/ceCT for standard follow-up.18F-FDG PET and ceCT were evaluated blindly by two independent observers, and classified as positive or negative for recurrence. Additionally a combined evaluation of both techniques was performed. The final diagnosis was established by histopathological analysis or a clinical follow-up longer than 6 months. Statistical diagnostic parameters and concordance levels between both diagnostic techniques were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 114 explorations on 90 patients were analyzed. Only 4 patients were diagnosed as asymptomatic recurrence during the follow-up. 18F-FDG PET/ceCT, 18F-FDG PET and ceCT showed an association with the final diagnosis (p=0.002 and χ2=11.96; p<0.001 and χ2=15.60; p=0.001 and χ2=11.96, respectively). The concordance between 18F-FDG PET and ceCT was moderate/high and significant (kappa=0.672; p<0.001). A sensitivity and specificity of 50% and 88% was obtained for the 18F-FDG PET/ceCT civ, 50% and 93% for the 18F-FDG PET, and 50% and 91% for the ceCT. CONCLUSION: The combined use of 18F-FDG PET/ceCT did not offer any advantage compared to any isolated diagnostic technique in the detection of asymptomatic lymphoma recurrence.

[PET-CT with intravenous contrast in the evaluation of patients with lymphoma. Contribution to diagnostic indications]. / PET-TAC con contraste intravenoso en la valoración de pacientes con linfoma. Aproximación hacia las indicaciones diagnósticas.

AIM: To define the utility of intravenous contrast administration in the PET-CT (PET-CTc) in patients with lymphoma in order to determine its possible indications. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 78 patients with lymphoma were prospectively evaluated. All underwent simultaneous PET-CTc scans in a hybrid system for staging (8), evaluation of response to treatment (29), suspicion of recurrence (9) and complete remission control (48). The PET scan was acquired by a conventional method and the diagnostic CT scan was performed according to radiological protocol. Both examinations were evaluated blinded and independently, analyzing 28 anatomical locations in order to determine the degree of agreement. Final diagnosis was established by the clinician based on the histological study, results of other diagnostic techniques or clinical follow-up. RESULTS: The final result of both techniques were concordant in 87/94 studies (92.5%). A total of 158 (36 FP) pathological locations were detected with PET-CT and 189 (71 FP) with CTc, with 72 locations being discordant between both techniques. Global sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were 93%, 98%, 77% and 99%; and 94%, 97%, 62% and 99%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of intravenous contrast does not seem to provide any advantage in the determination of nodal and extranodal disease in lymphoma patients. The low prevalence of disease probably accounts for the limited PPV of both techniques. An increase of our sample size, with a greater homogeneity of the groups, should offer more reliable results.

PET-TAC con contraste intravenoso en la valoración de pacientes con linfoma. Aproximación hacia las indicaciones diagnósticas / PET-CT with intravenous contrast in the evaluation of patients with lymphoma. Contribution to diagnostic indications

ObjetivoDefinir la utilidad de la administración de contraste intravenoso en la PET-TAC (PET-TACc) en pacientes con linfoma, con el fin de determinar sus posibles indicaciones.Material y métodoSe ha valorado prospectivamente a 78 pacientes con linfoma, a los que se les realizó 94 estudios PET-TACc de manera simultánea en un equipo híbrido para estadiaje (8), valoración de respuesta al tratamiento (29), sospecha de recidiva (9) y control en remisión (48). El estudio PET se adquirió de forma convencional y la TACc se realizó según protocolo radiológico.Material y métodoSe valoraron ambas exploraciones, de forma independiente y ciega, analizando 28 localizaciones anatómicas con el fin de determinar la sensibilidad (S), la especificidad (E), el valor predictivo positivo (VPP) y el valor predictivo negativo (VPN), así como el grado de concordancia. El diagnóstico final fue establecido por el clínico atendiendo a la confirmación histológica, al resultado de otras técnicas diagnósticas o al seguimiento clínico.ResultadosAmbas técnicas fueron concordantes en su resultado final en 87/94 estudios (92,5%). Se encontraron 158 (36 falsos positivos [FP]) localizaciones patológicas con PET-TAC y 189 (71 FP) con TACc, siendo 72 discordantes entre ambas técnicas.ResultadosLa S, la E, el VPP y el VPN de la PET-TAC y de la TACc fueron del 93, el 98, el 77 y el 99%, y del 94, el 97, el 62 y el 99%, respectivamente.ConclusionesLa administración de contraste intravenoso no parece aportar ventajas en la determinación de patología ganglionar ni extraganglionar en los pacientes con linfoma. La baja prevalencia de enfermedad probablemente sea la causa del limitado VPP de ambas técnicas. La ampliación de nuestra casuística, con una mayor homogeneidad de los grupos, ofrecerá resultados más fiables(AU9

AimTo define the utility of intravenous contrast administration in the PET-CT (PET-CTc) in patients with lymphoma in order to determine its possible indications.Material and methods78 patients with lymphoma were prospectively evaluated. All underwent simultaneous PET-CTc scans in a hybrid system for staging (8), evaluation of response to treatment (29), suspicion of recurrence (9) and complete remission control (48). The PET scan was acquired by a conventional method and the diagnostic CT scan was performed according to radiological protocol.Material and methodsBoth examinations were evaluated blinded and independently, analyzing 28 anatomical locations in order to determine the degree of agreement. Final diagnosis was established by the clinician based on the histological study, results of other diagnostic techniques or clinical follow-up.ResultsThe final result of both techniques were concordant in 87/94 studies (92.5%). A total of 158 (36 FP) pathological locations were detected with PET-CT and 189 (71 FP) with CTc, with 72 locations being discordant between both techniques.ResultsGlobal sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were 93%, 98%, 77% and 99%; and 94%, 97%, 62% and 99%, respectively.ConclusionsAdministration of intravenous contrast does not seem to provide any advantage in the determination of nodal and extranodal disease in lymphoma patients. The low prevalence of disease probably accounts for the limited PPV of both techniques. An increase of our sample size, with a greater homogeneity of the groups, should offer more reliable results(AU)