Journal of Clinical Medicine (Oct 2022)

Prospective Evaluation of Different Methods for Volumetric Analysis on [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/CT in Pediatric Hodgkin Lymphoma

  • Egesta Lopci,
  • Caterina Elia,
  • Barbara Catalfamo,
  • Roberta Burnelli,
  • Valli De Re,
  • Lara Mussolin,
  • Arnoldo Piccardo,
  • Angelina Cistaro,
  • Eugenio Borsatti,
  • Pietro Zucchetta,
  • Maurizio Bianchi,
  • Salvatore Buffardi,
  • Piero Farruggia,
  • Alberto Garaventa,
  • Alessandra Sala,
  • Luciana Vinti,
  • Christine Mauz-Koerholz,
  • Maurizio Mascarin

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11206223
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 11, no. 20
p. 6223

Abstract

Read online

Rationale: Therapy response evaluation by 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT (FDG PET) has become a powerful tool for the discrimination of responders from non-responders in pediatric Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). Recently, volumetric analyses have been regarded as a valuable tool for disease prognostication and biological characterization in cancer. Given the multitude of methods available for volumetric analysis in HL, the AIEOP Hodgkin Lymphoma Study Group has designed a prospective analysis of the Italian cohort enrolled in the EuroNet-PHL-C2 trial. Methods: Primarily, the study aimed to compare the different segmentation techniques used for volumetric assessment in HL patients at baseline (PET1) and during therapy: early (PET2) and late assessment (PET3). Overall, 50 patients and 150 scans were investigated for the current analysis. A dedicated software was used to semi-automatically delineate contours of the lesions by using different threshold methods. More specifically, four methods were applied: (1) fixed 41% threshold of the maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) within the respective lymphoma site (V41%), (2) fixed absolute SUV threshold of 2.5 (V2.5); (3) SUVmax(lesion)/SUVmean liver >1.5 (Vliver); (4) adaptive method (AM). All parameters obtained from the different methods were analyzed with respect to response. Results: Among the different methods investigated, the strongest correlation was observed between AM and Vliver (rho > 0.9; p p 0.9; p p = 0.01 and 0.04 for MTV and 0.03 and 0.04 for TLG, respectively). SUVmean also resulted in significant correlation as absolute value or variation. Conclusions: The best correlation for volumetric analysis was documented for AM and Vliver, followed by V2.5. The volumetric analyses obtained from V2.5 and Vliver significantly correlated to response to therapy, proving to be preferred thresholds in our pediatric HL cohort.

Keywords