PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
January 11, 2012Blood237 citations

Interim 18-FDG-PET/CT failed to predict the outcome in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients treated at the diagnosis with rituximab-CHOP

View Full Paper
PPPatrizia PregnoACAnnalisa ChiappellaMBMarilena Bellò

Key Result

Interim-PET positivity failed to independently predict worse progression-free survival in DLBCL patients treated with R-CHOP (HR 1.27, P=.691), whereas final-PET remained a strong prognostic factor.

Study Design

Type

Cohort (n=88)

Structured PICO

Does interim 18-FDG-PET/CT predict progression-free survival in DLBCL patients treated with R-CHOP?

P
Population
88 first-line diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients treated with 6-8 R-CHOP courses
I
Intervention
Interim 18-FDG-PET/CT (I-PET) performed after 2 to 4 courses of R-CHOP
C
Comparator
Final-PET (F-PET) at the end of therapy, or comparison between I-PET positive vs negative
O
Outcome
Progression-free survival (PFS)hard clinical

Interim 18-FDG-PET/CT does not independently predict progression-free survival in DLBCL patients treated with R-CHOP, suggesting it may not be a reliable tool for early treatment adaptation.

Main Result

Effect estimate: HR 1.27

Absolute Event Rate: 85% vs 72%

p-value: p=.691

Limitations

  • Small number of events
  • Need for larger prospective studies
  • Need for harmonization of I-PET reading criteria

Abstract

Role of interim-PET (I-PET) in diffuse large B-cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) is controversial. To determine predictive value of I-PET on progression-free survival (PFS), we enrolled 88 first-line DLBCL patients treated with 6-8 R-CHOP courses regardless of I-PET. PET/CT were performed at diagnosis, after 2 to 4 courses and at the end of therapy with central reviewing according to visual dichotomous criteria. Results are as follows: I-PET, 72% negative, 28% positive; final-PET (F-PET), 88% negative, 12% positive; clinical complete response 90%. Concordance between clinical response and F-PET negativity was 97% because of 2 false positive. With a median follow-up of 26.2 months, 2-year overall survival and PFS were 91% and 77%, respectively. Two-year PFS for I-PET and F-PET negative versus positive were as follows: I-PET 85% versus 72% (P = .0475); F-PET 83% versus 64% (P < .001). Because of a small number of events, 2 independent bivariate Cox models were tested for PFS. In model 1, F-PET contradicted I-PET (hazard ratio HR = 5.03, P = .015 vs 1.27, P = 691); in model 2, F-PET (HR = 4.54) and International propnostic Index score (HR = 5.36, P = .001) remained independent prognostic factors. In conclusion, positive I-PET is not predictive of a worse outcome in DLBCL; larger prospective studies and harmonization of I-PET reading criteria are needed.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Pregno et al. (2012) conducted a cohort in Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) (n=88). Interim-PET (I-PET) vs. I-PET negative vs positive was evaluated on Progression-free survival (PFS) (HR 1.27, p=.691). Interim-PET positivity failed to independently predict worse progression-free survival in DLBCL patients treated with R-CHOP (HR 1.27, P=.691), whereas final-PET remained a strong prognostic factor.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a1113c3eeb8b6643916a7a5https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2011-06-359943
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper