Seminars in Radiation Oncology
Volume 17, Issue 3 , Pages 190-197 , July 2007

2-[18F]Fluoro-2-Deoxyglucose Positron-Emission Tomography in Staging, Response Evaluation, and Treatment Planning of Lymphomas

  • Lena Specht, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress reprint requests to Department of Oncology, Section 5073, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.

References 

  1. Price PM, Jones T. The role of PET scanning in radiotherapy. Br J Radiol. 2005;28(suppl):2–4
  2. Paul R. Comparison of fluorine-18-2-fluorodeoxyglucose and gallium-67 citrate imaging for detection of lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 1987;28:288–292
  3. Hutchings M, Loft A, Hansen M. Different histopathological subtypes of Hodgkin lymphoma show significantly different levels of FDG uptake. Hematol Oncol. 2006;24:146–150
  4. Lapela M, Leskinen S, Minn HR. Increased glucose metabolism in untreated non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: A study with positron emission tomography and fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose. Blood. 1995;86:3522–3527
  5. Leskinen-Kallio S, Ruotsalainen U, Nagren K. Uptake of carbon-11-methionine and fluorodeoxyglucose in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: A PET study. J Nucl Med. 1991;32:1211–1218
  6. Newman JS, Francis IR, Kaminski MS. Imaging of lymphoma with PET with 2-[F-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose: Correlation with CT. Radiology. 1994;190:111–116
  7. Okada J, Yoshikawa K, Imazeki K. The use of FDG-PET in the detection and management of malignant lymphoma: Correlation of uptake with prognosis. J Nucl Med. 1991;32:686–691
  8. Okada J, Yoshikawa K, Itami M. Positron emission tomography using fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose in malignant lymphoma: A comparison with proliferative activity. J Nucl Med. 1992;33:325–329
  9. Rodriguez M, Rehn S, Ahlstrom H. Predicting malignancy grade with PET in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 1995;36:1790–1796
  10. Schoder H, Noy A, Gonen M. Intensity of 18fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in positron emission tomography distinguishes between indolent and aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:4643–4651
  11. Ambrosini V, Rubello D, Castellucci P. Diagnostic role of 18F-FDG pet in gastric MALT lymphoma. Nucl Med Rev Cent East Eur. 2006;9:37–40
  12. Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Najjar F. Positron emission tomography (PET) with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) for the staging of low-grade non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL). Ann Oncol. 2001;12:825–830
  13. Najjar F, Hustinx R, Jerusalem G. Positron emission tomography (PET) for staging low-grade non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas (NHL). Cancer Biother Radiopharm. 2001;16:297–304
  14. Buchmann I, Moog F, Schirrmeister H. Positron emission tomography for detection and staging of malignant lymphoma. Recent Results Cancer Res. 2000;156:78–89
  15. Buchmann I, Reinhardt M, Elsner K. 2-(fluorine-18)fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in the detection and staging of malignant lymphoma (A bicenter trial). Cancer. 2001;91:889–899
  16. Burton C, Ell P, Linch D. The role of PET imaging in lymphoma. Br J Haematol. 2004;126:772–784
  17. Hutchings M, Eigtved AI, Specht L. FDG-PET in the clinical management of Hodgkin lymphoma. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2004;52:19–32
  18. Hutchings M, Loft A, Hansen M. Positron emission tomography with or without computed tomography in the primary staging of Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Haematologica. 2006;91:482–489
  19. Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte MF. Whole-body positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose compared to standard procedures for staging patients with Hodgkin’s disease. Haematologica. 2001;86:266–273
  20. Jerusalem G, Hustinx R, Beguin Y. Positron emission tomography imaging for lymphoma. Curr Opin Oncol. 2005;17:441–445
  21. Menzel C, Dobert N, Mitrou P. Positron emission tomography for the staging of Hodgkin’s lymphoma—Increasing the body of evidence in favor of the method. Acta Oncol. 2002;41:430–436
  22. Barrington SF, O’Doherty MJ. Limitations of PET for imaging lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30(suppl 1):S117–S127
  23. Elstrom R, Guan L, Baker G. Utility of FDG-PET scanning in lymphoma by WHO classification. Blood. 2003;101:3875–3876
  24. Hoffmann M, Kletter K, Becherer A. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18F-FDG-PET) for staging and follow-up of marginal zone B-cell lymphoma. Oncology. 2003;64:336–340
  25. Hoffmann M, Chott A, Puspok A. 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (18F-FDG-PET) does not visualize follicular lymphoma of the duodenum. Ann Hematol. 2004;83:276–278
  26. Jerusalem GH, Beguin YP. Positron emission tomography in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL): Relationship between tracer uptake and pathological findings, including preliminary experience in the staging of low-grade NHL. Clin Lymphoma. 2002;3:56–61
  27. Pakos EE, Fotopoulos AD, Ioannidis JP. 18F-FDG PET for evaluation of bone marrow infiltration in staging of lymphoma: A meta-analysis. J Nucl Med. 2005;46:958–963
  28. Wohrer S, Jaeger U, Kletter K. 18F-fluoro-deoxy-glucose positron emission tomography (18F-FDG-PET) visualizes follicular lymphoma irrespective of grading. Ann Oncol. 2006;17:780–784
  29. Specht L. Staging systems and staging investigations at presentation. In:  Magrath I editors. The Lymphoid Neoplasms. London: Hodder Arnold; 2006;
  30. Bendini M, Zuiani C, Bazzocchi M. Magnetic resonance imaging and 67Ga scan versus computed tomography in the staging and in the monitoring of mediastinal malignant lymphoma: A prospective pilot study. MAGMA. 1996;4:213–224
  31. Tomura N, Hirano H, Sashi R. Comparison of MR imaging and CT in discriminating tumor infiltration of bone and bone marrow in the skull base. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 1998;22:41–51
  32. Wyttenbach R, Vock P, Tschappeler H. Cross-sectional imaging with CT and/or MRI of pediatric chest tumors. Eur Radiol. 1998;8:1040–1046
  33. Front D, Israel O. Present state and future role of gallium-67 scintigraphy in lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 1996;37:530–532
  34. Kostakoglu L, Leonard JP, Kuji I. Comparison of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and Ga-67 scintigraphy in evaluation of lymphoma. Cancer. 2002;94:879–888
  35. Wirth A, Seymour JF, Hicks RJ. Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography, gallium-67 scintigraphy, and conventional staging for Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Am J Med. 2002;112:262–268
  36. Even-Sapir E, Israel O. Gallium-67 scintigraphy: A cornerstone in functional imaging of lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30(suppl 1):S65–S81
  37. Friedberg JW, Fischman A, Neuberg D. FDG-PET is superior to gallium scintigraphy in staging and more sensitive in the follow-up of patients with de novo Hodgkin lymphoma: A blinded comparison. Leuk Lymphoma. 2004;45:85–92
  38. Kostakoglu L, Leonard JP, Coleman M. The role of FDG-PET imaging in the management of lymphoma. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol. 2004;2:115–121
  39. Van Den Bossche B, Lambert B, De Winter F. 18FDG PET versus high-dose 67Ga scintigraphy for restaging and treatment follow-up of lymphoma patients. Nucl Med Commun. 2002;23:1079–1083
  40. Yamamoto F, Tsukamoto E, Nakada K. 18F-FDG PET is superior to 67Ga SPECT in the staging of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Ann Nucl Med. 2004;18:519–526
  41. Zijlstra JM, Hoekstra OS, Raijmakers PG. 18FDG positron emission tomography versus 67Ga scintigraphy as prognostic test during chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Br J Haematol. 2003;123:454–462
  42. Bangerter M, Moog F, Buchmann I. Whole-body 2-[18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for accurate staging of Hodgkin’s disease. Ann Oncol. 1998;9:1117–1122
  43. Carr R, Barrington SF, Madan B. Detection of lymphoma in bone marrow by whole-body positron emission tomography. Blood. 1998;91:3340–3346
  44. Delbeke D, Martin WH, Morgan DS. 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose imaging with positron emission tomography for initial staging of Hodgkin’s disease and lymphoma. Mol Imaging Biol. 2002;4:105–114
  45. Hoh CK, Glaspy J, Rosen P. Whole-body FDG-PET imaging for staging of Hodgkin’s disease and lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 1997;38:343–348
  46. Hueltenschmidt B, Sautter-Bihl ML, Lang O. Whole body positron emission tomography in the treatment of Hodgkin disease. Cancer. 2001;91:302–310
  47. Isasi CR, Lu P, Blaufox MD. A metaanalysis of 18F-2-deoxy-2-fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography in the staging and restaging of patients with lymphoma. Cancer. 2005;104:1066–1074
  48. Jerusalem G, Warland V, Najjar F. Whole-body 18F-FDG PET for the evaluation of patients with Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Nucl Med Commun. 1999;20:13–20
  49. Moog F, Bangerter M, Diederichs CG. Lymphoma: Role of whole-body 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose (FDG) PET in nodal staging. Radiology. 1997;203:795–800
  50. Moog F, Bangerter M, Diederichs CG. Extranodal malignant lymphoma: detection with FDG PET versus CT. Radiology. 1998;206:475–481
  51. Moog F, Kotzerke J, Reske SN. FDG PET can replace bone scintigraphy in primary staging of malignant lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 1999;40:1407–1413
  52. Munker R, Glass J, Griffeth LK. Contribution of PET imaging to the initial staging and prognosis of patients with Hodgkin’s disease. Ann Oncol. 2004;15:1699–1704
  53. Partridge S, Timothy A, O’Doherty MJ. 2-Fluorine-18-fluoro-2-deoxy-D glucose positron emission tomography in the pretreatment staging of Hodgkin’s disease: Influence on patient management in a single institution. Ann Oncol. 2000;11:1273–1279
  54. Rini JN, Leonidas JC, Tomas MB. 18F-FDG PET versus CT for evaluating the spleen during initial staging of lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:1072–1074
  55. Sasaki M, Kuwabara Y, Koga H. Clinical impact of whole body FDG-PET on the staging and therapeutic decision making for malignant lymphoma. Ann Nucl Med. 2002;16:337–345
  56. Schiepers C, Filmont JE, Czernin J. PET for staging of Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30(suppl 1):S82–S88
  57. Schoder H, Meta J, Yap C. Effect of whole-body (18)F-FDG PET imaging on clinical staging and management of patients with malignant lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:1139–1143
  58. Shah N, Hoskin P, McMillan A. The impact of FDG positron emission tomography imaging on the management of lymphomas. Br J Radiol. 2000;73:482–487
  59. Stumpe KD, Urbinelli M, Steinert HC. Whole-body positron emission tomography using fluorodeoxyglucose for staging of lymphoma: Effectiveness and comparison with computed tomography. Eur J Nucl Med. 1998;25:721–728
  60. Weihrauch MR, Re D, Bischoff S. Whole-body positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose for initial staging of patients with Hodgkin’s disease. Ann Hematol. 2002;81:20–25
  61. Beal KP, Yeung HW, Yahalom J. FDG-PET scanning for detection and staging of extranodal marginal zone lymphomas of the MALT type: A report of 42 cases. Ann Oncol. 2005;16:473–480
  62. Hadithi M, Mallant M, Oudejans J. 18F-FDG PET versus CT for the detection of enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma in refractory celiac disease. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:1622–1627
  63. Hoffmann M, Vogelsang H, Kletter K. 18F-fluoro-deoxy-glucose positron emission tomography (18F-FDG-PET) for assessment of enteropathy-type T cell lymphoma. Gut. 2003;52:347–351
  64. Roe RH, Finger PT, Kurli M. Whole-body positron emission tomography/computed tomography imaging and staging of orbital lymphoma. Ophthalmology. 2006;113:1854–1858
  65. Shapiro M, Yun M, Junkins-Hopkins JM. Assessment of tumor burden and treatment response by 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose injection and positron emission tomography in patients with cutaneous T- and B-cell lymphomas. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2002;47:623–628
  66. Cheson BD, Horning SJ, Coiffier B NCI Sponsored International Working Group. Report of an international workshop to standardize response criteria for non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:1244–1253
  67. Lister TA, Crowther D, Sutcliffe SB. Report of a committee convened to discuss the evaluation and staging of patients with Hodgkin’s disease: Cotswolds meeting. J Clin Oncol. 1989;7:1630–1636
  68. Bangerter M, Kotzerke J, Griesshammer M. Positron emission tomography with 18-fluorodeoxyglucose in the staging and follow-up of lymphoma in the chest. Acta Oncol. 1999;38:799–804
  69. Becherer A, Jaeger U, Szabo M. Prognostic value of FDG-PET in malignant lymphoma. Q J Nucl Med. 2003;47:14–21
  70. Cremerius U, Fabry U, Neuerburg J. Positron emission tomography with 18F-FDG to detect residual disease after therapy for malignant lymphoma. Nucl Med Commun. 1998;19:1055–1063
  71. de Wit M, Bumann D, Beyer W. Whole-body positron emission tomography (PET) for diagnosis of residual mass in patients with lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 1997;8(suppl 1):57–60
  72. de Wit M, Bohuslavizki KH, Buchert R. 18FDG-PET following treatment as valid predictor for disease-free survival in Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 2001;12:29–37
  73. Dittmann H, Sokler M, Kollmannsberger C. Comparison of 18FDG-PET with CT scans in the evaluation of patients with residual and recurrent Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Oncol Rep. 2001;8:1393–1399
  74. Freudenberg LS, Antoch G, Schutt P. FDG-PET/CT in re-staging of patients with lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31:325–329
  75. Guay C, Lepine M, Verreault J. Prognostic value of PET using 18F-FDG in Hodgkin’s disease for posttreatment evaluation. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:1225–1231
  76. Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte MF. Whole-body positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose for posttreatment evaluation in Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has higher diagnostic and prognostic value than classical computed tomography scan imaging. Blood. 1999;94:429–433
  77. Juweid ME, Wiseman GA, Vose JM. Response assessment of aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma by integrated International Workshop Criteria and fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:4652–4661
  78. Kazama T, Faria SC, Varavithya V. FDG PET in the evaluation of treatment for lymphoma: Clinical usefulness and pitfalls. Radiographics. 2005;25:191–207
  79. Lang O, Bihl H, Hultenschmidt B. Clinical relevance of positron emission tomography (PET) in treatment control and relapse of Hodgkin’s disease. Strahlenther Onkol. 2001;177:138–144
  80. Lavely WC, Delbeke D, Greer JP. FDG PET in the follow-up management of patients with newly diagnosed Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma after first-line chemotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003;57:307–315
  81. Maisey NR, Hill ME, Webb A. Are 18fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging useful in the prediction of relapse in lymphoma residual masses?. Eur J Cancer. 2000;36:200–206
  82. Mikhaeel NG, Timothy AR, Hain SF. 18-FDG-PET for the assessment of residual masses on CT following treatment of lymphomas. Ann Oncol. 2000;11(suppl 1):147–150
  83. Naumann R, Vaic A, Beuthien-Baumann B. Prognostic value of positron emission tomography in the evaluation of post-treatment residual mass in patients with Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Br J Haematol. 2001;115:793–800
  84. Panizo C, Perez-Salazar M, Bendandi M. Positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose for the evaluation of residual Hodgkin’s disease mediastinal masses. Leuk Lymphoma. 2004;45:1829–1833
  85. Rahmouni A, Luciani A, Itti E. Quantitative CT analysis for assessing response in lymphoma (Cheson’s criteria). Cancer Imaging. 2005;5:S102–S106
  86. Reinhardt MJ, Herkel C, Altehoefer C. Computed tomography and 18F-FDG positron emission tomography for therapy control of Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma patients: When do we really need FDG-PET?. Ann Oncol. 2005;16:1524–1529
  87. Reske SN. PET and restaging of malignant lymphoma including residual masses and relapse. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30(suppl 1):S89–S96
  88. Rigacci L, Castagnoli A, Dini C. 18FDG-positron emission tomography in post treatment evaluation of residual mass in Hodgkin’s lymphoma: Long-term results. Oncol Rep. 2005;14:1209–1214
  89. Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P. Can positron emission tomography with [(18)F]-fluorodeoxyglucose after first-line treatment distinguish Hodgkin’s disease patients who need additional therapy from others in whom additional therapy would mean avoidable toxicity?. Br J Haematol. 2001;115:272–278
  90. Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P. Prognostic value of positron emission tomography (PET) with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose ([18F]FDG) after first-line chemotherapy in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: Is [18F]FDG-PET a valid alternative to conventional diagnostic methods?. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:414–419
  91. Weihrauch MR, Re D, Scheidhauer K. Thoracic positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose for the evaluation of residual mediastinal Hodgkin disease. Blood. 2001;98:2930–2934
  92. Zijlstra JM, Lindauer-van der Werf G, Hoekstra OS. 18F-fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography for post-treatment evaluation of malignant lymphoma: A systematic review. Haematologica. 2006;91:522–529
  93. Zinzani PL, Magagnoli M, Chierichetti F. The role of positron emission tomography (PET) in the management of lymphoma patients. Ann Oncol. 1999;10:1181–1184
  94. Zinzani PL, Chierichetti F, Zompatori M. Advantages of positron emission tomography (PET) with respect to computed tomography in the follow-up of lymphoma patients with abdominal presentation. Leuk Lymphoma. 2002;43:1239–1243
  95. Diehl V, Specht L, Pfistner B. Response criteria in malignant lymphomas revisited—A proposal of the International Harmonization Project of the Competence Network of Malignant Lymphoma. Hematology (EHA Educ Program). 2006;2:151–153
  96. Cheson BD, Pfistner B, Juweid ME. Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:579–586
  97. Juweid ME, Stroobants S, Mottaghy FM. Use of positron emission tomography (PET) for response assessment of lymphoma: Consensus of the Imaging Subcommittee of the International Harmonization Project in Lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:571–578
  98. Findlay M, Young H, Cunningham D. Noninvasive monitoring of tumor metabolism using fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography in colorectal cancer liver metastases: Correlation with tumor response to fluorouracil. J Clin Oncol. 1996;14:700–708
  99. Jansson T, Westlin JE, Ahlstrom H. Positron emission tomography studies in patients with locally advanced and/or metastatic breast cancer: A method for early therapy evaluation?. J Clin Oncol. 1995;13:1470–1477
  100. Wahl RL, Zasadny K, Helvie M. Metabolic monitoring of breast cancer chemohormonotherapy using positron emission tomography: Initial evaluation. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11:2101–2111
  101. Romer W, Hanauske AR, Ziegler S. Positron emission tomography in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: Assessment of chemotherapy with fluorodeoxyglucose. Blood. 1998;91:4464–4471
  102. Gallamini A, Rigacci L, Merli F. The predictive value of positron emission tomography scanning performed after two courses of standard therapy on treatment outcome in advanced stage Hodgkin’s disease. Haematologica. 2006;91:475–481
  103. Haioun C, Itti E, Rahmouni A. [18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in aggressive lymphoma: An early prognostic tool for predicting patient outcome. Blood. 2005;106:1376–1381
  104. Hutchings M, Mikhaeel NG, Fields PA. Prognostic value of interim FDG-PET after two or three cycles of chemotherapy in Hodgkin lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 2005;16:1160–1168
  105. Hutchings M, Loft A, Hansen M. FDG-PET after two cycles of chemotherapy predicts treatment failure and progression-free survival in Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood. 2006;107:52–59
  106. Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte MF. Persistent tumor 18F-FDG uptake after a few cycles of polychemotherapy is predictive of treatment failure in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Haematologica. 2000;85:613–618
  107. Kostakoglu L, Coleman M, Leonard JP. PET predicts prognosis after 1 cycle of chemotherapy in aggressive lymphoma and Hodgkin’s disease. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:1018–1027
  108. Mikhaeel NG, Hutchings M, Fields PA. FDG-PET after two to three cycles of chemotherapy predicts progression-free and overall survival in high-grade non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 2005;16:1514–1523
  109. Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P. Early restaging positron emission tomography with (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose predicts outcome in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 2002;13:1356–1363
  110. Zinzani PL, Tani M, Fanti S. Early positron emission tomography (PET) restaging: A predictive final response in Hodgkin’s disease patients. Ann Oncol. 2006;17:1296–1300
  111. Girinsky T, Pichenot C, Beaudre A. Is intensity-modulated radiotherapy better than conventional radiation treatment and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for mediastinal masses in patients with Hodgkin’s disease, and is there a role for beam orientation optimization and dose constraints assigned to virtual volumes?. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;64:218–226
  112. Specht L, Gray RG, Clarke MJ International Hodgkin’s Disease Collaborative Group. Influence of more extensive radiotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy on long-term outcome of early-stage Hodgkin’s disease: A meta-analysis of 23 randomized trials involving 3,888 patients. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:830–843
  113. Yahalom J. Transformation in the use of radiation therapy of Hodgkin lymphoma: New concepts and indications lead to modern field design and are assisted by PET imaging and intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Eur J Haematol. 2005;66(suppl):90–97
  114. Berthelsen AK, Dobbs J, Kjellén E: What’s new in target volume definitions for radiologists in ICRU Report 71? How can the ICRU volume definitions be integrated in clinical practice? Cancer Imaging (in press)
  115. Daisne JF, Duprez T, Weynand B. Tumor volume in pharyngolaryngeal squamous cell carcinoma: Comparison at CT, MR imaging, and FDG PET and validation with surgical specimen. Radiology. 2004;233:93–100
  116. Gregoire V. Is there any future in radiotherapy planning without the use of PET: Unraveling the myth. Radiother Oncol. 2004;73:261–263
  117. Jarritt PH, Carson KJ, Hounsell AR. The role of PET/CT scanning in radiotherapy planning. Br J Radiol. 2006;79:S27–S35(spec no 1)
  118. Jarritt PH, Hounsell AR, Carson KJ. Use of combined PET/CT images for radiotherapy planning: Initial experiences in lung cancer. Br J Radiol. 2005;28(suppl):33–40
  119. Girinsky T, van der Maazen R, Specht L. Involved-node radiotherapy (INRT) in patients with early Hodgkin lymphoma: Concepts and guidelines. Radiother Oncol. 2006;79:270–277
  120. van Baardwijk A, Baumert BG, Bosmans G. The current status of FDG-PET in tumour volume definition in radiotherapy treatment planning. Cancer Treat Rev. 2006;32:245–260
  121. Dizendorf EV, Baumert BG, von Schulthess GK. Impact of whole-body 18F-FDG PET on staging and managing patients for radiation therapy. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:24–29
  122. Lee YK, Cook G, Flower MA. Addition of 18F-FDG-PET scans to radiotherapy planning of thoracic lymphoma. Radiother Oncol. 2004;73:277–283
  123. Asakura H, Togami T, Mitani M. Usefulness of FDG-PET imaging for the radiotherapy treatment planning of pyothorax-associated lymphoma. Ann Nucl Med. 2005;19:725–728
  124. Krasin MJ, Hudson MM, Kaste SC. Positron emission tomography in pediatric radiation oncology: Integration in the treatment-planning process. Pediatr Radiol. 2004;34:214–221
  125. Brianzoni E, Rossi G, Ancidei S. Radiotherapy planning: PET/CT scanner performances in the definition of gross tumour volume and clinical target volume. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005;32:1392–1399
  126. Hutchings E, Berthelsen G, Loft S. Clinical impact of FDG-PET/CT in the planning of radiotherapy for early stage Hodgkin lymphoma. Eur J Haematol. 2007;78:206–212
  127. Saleem A. Potential of PET in oncology and radiotherapy. Br J Radiol Suppl. 2005;28:6–16
  128. West CML, Charnley N. The potential of PET to increase understanding of the biological basis of tumour and normal tissue response to radiotherapy. Br J Radiol Suppl. 2005;28:50–54

PII: S1053-4296(07)00016-1

doi: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2007.02.005

Seminars in Radiation Oncology
Volume 17, Issue 3 , Pages 190-197 , July 2007

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution