PloS one · 2020
Quantitative assessment of interim PET in Hodgkin lymphoma: An evaluation of the qPET method in adult patients in the RAPID trial.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Georgi Thomas W, Kurch Lars, Hasenclever Dirk, Warbey Victoria S, Pike Lucy, Radford John, Sabri Osama, Kluge Regine, Barrington Sally F
Аннотация
AIM: qPET is a quantitative method used to assess FDG-PET response in lymphoma. qPET was developed using 898 scans from children with Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL) in the EuroNet-PHL-C1 (C1) trial. The aim of this study was to determine if qPET could be applied as an alternative response method in adults in the RAPID trial.
METHODS: PET-CT scans performed after 3 cycles of ABVD in RAPID were re-evaluated by an independent reader, blinded to PET results and outcome in RAPID. All initially involved regions were assessed visually and by qPET. The distribution of qPET measurements was compared for RAPID and C1 patients. Previously published qPET thresholds corresponding to visual DS (vDS) of 1-5 in C1 were used to derive quantitative DS (qDS) for RAPID patients.
RESULTS: PET-CT scans were available for 450 patients from RAPID. vDS were 1 (171 scans), 2 (153 scans), 3 (72 scans), 4 (31 scans) and 5 (23 scans) respectively. The distribution of qPET values was similar to C1 patients, with a unimodal 'normal' distribution and a long tail to the right, suggestive of favorable response in the majority and less favorable response in the minority with outlying values. qPET thresholds from C1 applied in RAPID patients gave 86% concordance for vDS and qDS. There was 97% concordance for complete metabolic response (CMR; DS 1-3) vs. no-CMR using the Lugano classification.
CONCLUSION: qPET which was developed in pediatric patients receiving more intensive OEPA chemotherapy, was a suitable quantitative method for assessing response in adult patients treated with ABVD in a response-adapted setting in the RAPID trial.
METHODS: PET-CT scans performed after 3 cycles of ABVD in RAPID were re-evaluated by an independent reader, blinded to PET results and outcome in RAPID. All initially involved regions were assessed visually and by qPET. The distribution of qPET measurements was compared for RAPID and C1 patients. Previously published qPET thresholds corresponding to visual DS (vDS) of 1-5 in C1 were used to derive quantitative DS (qDS) for RAPID patients.
RESULTS: PET-CT scans were available for 450 patients from RAPID. vDS were 1 (171 scans), 2 (153 scans), 3 (72 scans), 4 (31 scans) and 5 (23 scans) respectively. The distribution of qPET values was similar to C1 patients, with a unimodal 'normal' distribution and a long tail to the right, suggestive of favorable response in the majority and less favorable response in the minority with outlying values. qPET thresholds from C1 applied in RAPID patients gave 86% concordance for vDS and qDS. There was 97% concordance for complete metabolic response (CMR; DS 1-3) vs. no-CMR using the Lugano classification.
CONCLUSION: qPET which was developed in pediatric patients receiving more intensive OEPA chemotherapy, was a suitable quantitative method for assessing response in adult patients treated with ABVD in a response-adapted setting in the RAPID trial.