European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025
[18F]FDG PET/CT for treatment monitoring and prediction of progression in retroperitoneal fibrosis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bayerl Christian, Kaufmann Jonas, Metzger Giulia, Rogasch Julian M M, Amthauer Holger, Schatka Imke, Brenner Winfried, van der Giet Markus, Furth Christian
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Retroperitoneal fibrosis (RPF) is a rare inflammatory disease, that, if left untreated, can lead to ureteral obstruction and subsequent renal impairment. First-line treatment is prednisolone, with rituximab, often used for refractory cases. This study evaluates treatment response in both [18F]FDG PET and CT, and potential baseline parameters for early prediction of progression.
METHODS: 50 patients with RPF underwent at least two [18F]FDG PET/CT scans (baseline, BL, and first follow-up, FU1), 36 patients a second (FU2), 18 patients a third follow-up (FU3). PET parameters SUVmax, SUVmean, SUVpeak, metabolic active volume (MAV), thickness (CTrim) and cranio-caudal extension (CTcc) of the retroperitoneal mass were measured. Therapy groups were divided into prednisolone, rituximab and the combination of both.
RESULTS: All PET parameters showed significant correlations with CTrim at all four timepoints. After therapy all PET parameters and CTrim decreased significantly (p ≤ 0.021). Highly significant metabolic and morphologic response was seen in the prednisolone (p ≤ 0.003) and the combination therapy group (p ≤ 0.001). At FU2, eight patients showed progression, with MAV as a good predictor of progression in BL (p = 0.041; 217.33 versus 100.86 ml). At FU2, SUVmax, SUVpeak and MAV differed significantly between progression and non-progression group (p ≤ 0.009), while CT showed no significant differences.
CONCLUSION: Our findings underscore the superiority of PET against CT in therapy monitoring of RPF, especially in the detection of progression at FU2. Higher BL MAV correlated with progression at FU2, indicating its potential as a predictive marker. Still, especially when PET is not available, CT can be considered for initial therapy monitoring.
METHODS: 50 patients with RPF underwent at least two [18F]FDG PET/CT scans (baseline, BL, and first follow-up, FU1), 36 patients a second (FU2), 18 patients a third follow-up (FU3). PET parameters SUVmax, SUVmean, SUVpeak, metabolic active volume (MAV), thickness (CTrim) and cranio-caudal extension (CTcc) of the retroperitoneal mass were measured. Therapy groups were divided into prednisolone, rituximab and the combination of both.
RESULTS: All PET parameters showed significant correlations with CTrim at all four timepoints. After therapy all PET parameters and CTrim decreased significantly (p ≤ 0.021). Highly significant metabolic and morphologic response was seen in the prednisolone (p ≤ 0.003) and the combination therapy group (p ≤ 0.001). At FU2, eight patients showed progression, with MAV as a good predictor of progression in BL (p = 0.041; 217.33 versus 100.86 ml). At FU2, SUVmax, SUVpeak and MAV differed significantly between progression and non-progression group (p ≤ 0.009), while CT showed no significant differences.
CONCLUSION: Our findings underscore the superiority of PET against CT in therapy monitoring of RPF, especially in the detection of progression at FU2. Higher BL MAV correlated with progression at FU2, indicating its potential as a predictive marker. Still, especially when PET is not available, CT can be considered for initial therapy monitoring.