Author:

Keywords:

Science & Technology, Life Sciences & Biomedicine, Radiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging, Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, PET-CT, Outcome prediction, Radiomics, METABOLIC TUMOR VOLUME, EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY/COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY, PROGRESSION-FREE SURVIVAL, TOTAL LESION GLYCOLYSIS, INTERNATIONAL PROGNOSTIC INDEX, QUANTIZATION PARAMETERS, F-18-FDG PET/CT, INTERIM, HETEROGENEITY, EXPERIENCE, Fluorodeoxyglucose F18, Humans, Lymphoma, Large B-Cell, Diffuse, Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography, Positron-Emission Tomography, Prognosis, Retrospective Studies, Treatment Outcome, Tumor Burden, 0299 Other Physical Sciences, 1103 Clinical Sciences, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imaging

Abstract:

PURPOSE: To systematically review the literature evaluating clinical utility of imaging metrics derived from baseline fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) for prediction of progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL). METHODS: A search of MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, Scopus and clinicaltrials.gov databases was undertaken for articles evaluating PET/CT imaging metrics as outcome predictors in HL and DLBCL. PRISMA guidelines were followed. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. RESULTS: Forty-one articles were included (31 DLBCL, 10 HL). Significant predictive ability was reported in 5/20 DLBCL studies assessing SUVmax (PFS: HR 0.13-7.35, OS: HR 0.83-11.23), 17/19 assessing metabolic tumour volume (MTV) (PFS: HR 2.09-11.20, OS: HR 2.40-10.32) and 10/13 assessing total lesion glycolysis (TLG) (PFS: HR 1.078-11.21, OS: HR 2.40-4.82). Significant predictive ability was reported in 1/4 HL studies assessing SUVmax (HR not reported), 6/8 assessing MTV (PFS: HR 1.2-10.71, OS: HR 1.00-13.20) and 2/3 assessing TLG (HR not reported). There are 7/41 studies assessing the use of radiomics (4 DLBCL, 2 HL); 5/41 studies had internal validation and 2/41 included external validation. All studies had overall moderate or high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Most studies are retrospective, underpowered, heterogenous in their methodology and lack external validation of described models. Further work in protocol harmonisation, automated segmentation techniques and optimum performance cut-off is required to develop robust methodologies amenable for clinical utility.