Results of studies using visual method for iPET interpretation
| References . | mFU . | iPETneg . | PPV . | NPV . | PFS according to iTEP . | OS according to iTEP . | Conclusion(s) of the authors: iTEP . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jerusalem et al30 | 17.5 mo | 82% | 100% | 67% | 2-y PFS neg: 62% vs pos: 0% | 2-y OS neg: 0% pos: 68% | “is predictive of CR, PFS and OS in NHL” |
| Spaepen et al9 | 36 mo | 53% (all patients) | 100%* | 84%* | mPFS (all patients) neg: 1059 d vs pos:45 d | 3-y OS (all patients) neg: >90% pos: 30% | “may be used to tailor induction chemotherapy in patients with aggressive NHL” |
| Haioun et al39 | 24 mo | 56.6% | 44%* | 90%* | 2-y PFS neg: 82% vs pos: 43% | 2-y OS neg: 90% pos: 61% | “should be an early guide to first-line strategies in aggressive lymphoma” |
| Mikhaeel et al40 | 24.4 mo | 41% and 15.7% with MUR | 71%* | 90%* | 2-y PFS (all patients) neg: 93% vs pos: 30% MRU: 59.9% | 2-y OS (all patients) neg: 100% pos: 73% MRU 82.4% | “is an accurate and independent predictor of PFS and OS” |
| Kostakoglu et al5 | 21 mo | 45% | 75% | 100% | 2-y PFS (all patients) neg: 100% vs pos: 12.5% | — | has “a high prognostic value after 1 cycle of chemotherapy …and may offer the potential for change in treatment paradigms” |
| Querellou et al41 | — | 75% | 83%* | 83%* | mEFS neg: 233 d vs pos: 465 d | — | “can predict the outcome of patients with aggressive lymphoma and should be a useful tool to modify an ineffective therapy” |
| Han et al9 | 24 mo (all patients) | 67.5% (all patients) | 33% (all patients) | 68% (all patients) | 2-y PFS (all patients) neg: 83% vs pos: 77% | 2-y OS (all patients) neg: 90% pos: 84% | “is not predictive of survival outcomes” |
| Fruchard et al42 | 22 mo (all patients) | 57% (all patients) | 70%§ | 100%§ | 2-y EFS neg: 85% vs pos: 30% | 2-y OS neg: 84% pos: 36% | “is valuable tool to early predict outcome” |
| Dupuis et al43 | 53 mo | 78% | — | — | 5-y EFS neg: 80% pos: 36% | — | “offers a powerful tool to predict outcome” |
| Moskowitz et al11 | 44 mo | 61%; 33 out of 38 pts with pos iPET had a negative biopsy | — | — | 2-y PFS§ neg: >90% pos with neg biopsy: 80%-85% pos with pos biopsy: 60% | — | “interim or posttreatment FDG-PET evaluation did not predict outcome; we recommend biopsy confirmation of an abnormal interim FDG-PET scan before changing therapy” |
| Cashen et al15 | 33.9 mo | 52% | 42% for relapse 33% for EOT§ | 77% for relapse; 100% for EOT§ | 2-y EFS neg: 85% pos: 63% | 2-y OS§ neg: 85% pos: 65% | “has a high NPV but low PPV” |
| Yang et al45 | 30 mo | 72% | — | — | 3-y PFS IWC: neg: 86% vs pos: 29.2% D5S: neg: 88.3% vs pos: 52.5% | 3-y OS IWC: neg: 86.4% vs pos: 31.1% D5S: neg: 91.4% vs pos: 53.3% | “had a significant predictive value for disease progression and survival”; “might be the single most important determinant of clinical outcome in patients with the same IPI risk” |
| Micallef et al46 | 43 mo | 78% | 46%§ | 88.8%§ | — | — | “using a positive PET2 to change therapy is not supported” |
| Zinzani et al47 | 50 mo | 61.5% | 62%§ | 96.5%§ | 4-y EFS neg: 75% vs pos: 18% | 4-y OS neg: 90% vs pos: 67% | “may represent a significant step forward in helping physicians make crucial decisions on further treatment” |
| Yoo et al48 | 20 mo | 64.5% | 62% | 93% | 3-y PFS neg: 84% vs pos: 66% | 3-y OS neg: 84% vs pos: 77% | “might be an inappropriate tool for designing risk-adaptive therapy” |
| Safar et al22 | 38 mo | 62.5% | 61%§ | 75.7%* for EOT according to CT/scan | 3-y PFS neg: 84% vs pos: 47% | 3-y OS neg: 88% vs pos: 62% | “predicts the outcome in DLBCL patients”; “still requires reproducible and universal interpretation criteria to permit reliable conclusions to be made for the routine use” |
| Carr et al44 | 35 mo | 64% | 45.8%§ for EOT | 100%§ for EOT | 2-y EFS neg: 90% vs pos: 58% | 2-y OS neg: 93% vs pos: 72% | “does not differentiate chemoresistant residual tumor from CR, nor does it provide sound basis for early escalation of therapy” |
| Swinnen et al49 | 4.6 y | 79% | 42%§ | 75% for 2-y PFS | 2-y PFS neg: 76% vs pos: 42% | 2-y OS neg: 93% vs pos: 77% | “Treatment modification based on early PET should remain confined to clinical trials” |
| Mamot et al23 | 24 mo | 40% at C2; 45% at C4 | 51.8%; 2-y EFS | 71% for 2-y EFS | 2-y EFS local visual: neg: 74.2% vs pos: 48.2%; Deauville central: neg: 75.9% vs pos: 41.4% | 2-y OS local visual: neg: 90.6% vs pos: 87.7%; Deauville central: neg: 93.9% vs pos: 84% | “has limited prognostic value”; “is not ready for clinical use to guide treatment decisions in individual patients” |
| Hertzberg et al31 | 35 mo | 71% at C4 | — | — | 2-y PFS: neg: 74% pos: 67% | 2-y OS: neg: 88% pos: 78% | “this study provides support for the further investigation of early selection of poor prognosis DLBCL patients, as identified by iPET scanning” |
| References . | mFU . | iPETneg . | PPV . | NPV . | PFS according to iTEP . | OS according to iTEP . | Conclusion(s) of the authors: iTEP . |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jerusalem et al30 | 17.5 mo | 82% | 100% | 67% | 2-y PFS neg: 62% vs pos: 0% | 2-y OS neg: 0% pos: 68% | “is predictive of CR, PFS and OS in NHL” |
| Spaepen et al9 | 36 mo | 53% (all patients) | 100%* | 84%* | mPFS (all patients) neg: 1059 d vs pos:45 d | 3-y OS (all patients) neg: >90% pos: 30% | “may be used to tailor induction chemotherapy in patients with aggressive NHL” |
| Haioun et al39 | 24 mo | 56.6% | 44%* | 90%* | 2-y PFS neg: 82% vs pos: 43% | 2-y OS neg: 90% pos: 61% | “should be an early guide to first-line strategies in aggressive lymphoma” |
| Mikhaeel et al40 | 24.4 mo | 41% and 15.7% with MUR | 71%* | 90%* | 2-y PFS (all patients) neg: 93% vs pos: 30% MRU: 59.9% | 2-y OS (all patients) neg: 100% pos: 73% MRU 82.4% | “is an accurate and independent predictor of PFS and OS” |
| Kostakoglu et al5 | 21 mo | 45% | 75% | 100% | 2-y PFS (all patients) neg: 100% vs pos: 12.5% | — | has “a high prognostic value after 1 cycle of chemotherapy …and may offer the potential for change in treatment paradigms” |
| Querellou et al41 | — | 75% | 83%* | 83%* | mEFS neg: 233 d vs pos: 465 d | — | “can predict the outcome of patients with aggressive lymphoma and should be a useful tool to modify an ineffective therapy” |
| Han et al9 | 24 mo (all patients) | 67.5% (all patients) | 33% (all patients) | 68% (all patients) | 2-y PFS (all patients) neg: 83% vs pos: 77% | 2-y OS (all patients) neg: 90% pos: 84% | “is not predictive of survival outcomes” |
| Fruchard et al42 | 22 mo (all patients) | 57% (all patients) | 70%§ | 100%§ | 2-y EFS neg: 85% vs pos: 30% | 2-y OS neg: 84% pos: 36% | “is valuable tool to early predict outcome” |
| Dupuis et al43 | 53 mo | 78% | — | — | 5-y EFS neg: 80% pos: 36% | — | “offers a powerful tool to predict outcome” |
| Moskowitz et al11 | 44 mo | 61%; 33 out of 38 pts with pos iPET had a negative biopsy | — | — | 2-y PFS§ neg: >90% pos with neg biopsy: 80%-85% pos with pos biopsy: 60% | — | “interim or posttreatment FDG-PET evaluation did not predict outcome; we recommend biopsy confirmation of an abnormal interim FDG-PET scan before changing therapy” |
| Cashen et al15 | 33.9 mo | 52% | 42% for relapse 33% for EOT§ | 77% for relapse; 100% for EOT§ | 2-y EFS neg: 85% pos: 63% | 2-y OS§ neg: 85% pos: 65% | “has a high NPV but low PPV” |
| Yang et al45 | 30 mo | 72% | — | — | 3-y PFS IWC: neg: 86% vs pos: 29.2% D5S: neg: 88.3% vs pos: 52.5% | 3-y OS IWC: neg: 86.4% vs pos: 31.1% D5S: neg: 91.4% vs pos: 53.3% | “had a significant predictive value for disease progression and survival”; “might be the single most important determinant of clinical outcome in patients with the same IPI risk” |
| Micallef et al46 | 43 mo | 78% | 46%§ | 88.8%§ | — | — | “using a positive PET2 to change therapy is not supported” |
| Zinzani et al47 | 50 mo | 61.5% | 62%§ | 96.5%§ | 4-y EFS neg: 75% vs pos: 18% | 4-y OS neg: 90% vs pos: 67% | “may represent a significant step forward in helping physicians make crucial decisions on further treatment” |
| Yoo et al48 | 20 mo | 64.5% | 62% | 93% | 3-y PFS neg: 84% vs pos: 66% | 3-y OS neg: 84% vs pos: 77% | “might be an inappropriate tool for designing risk-adaptive therapy” |
| Safar et al22 | 38 mo | 62.5% | 61%§ | 75.7%* for EOT according to CT/scan | 3-y PFS neg: 84% vs pos: 47% | 3-y OS neg: 88% vs pos: 62% | “predicts the outcome in DLBCL patients”; “still requires reproducible and universal interpretation criteria to permit reliable conclusions to be made for the routine use” |
| Carr et al44 | 35 mo | 64% | 45.8%§ for EOT | 100%§ for EOT | 2-y EFS neg: 90% vs pos: 58% | 2-y OS neg: 93% vs pos: 72% | “does not differentiate chemoresistant residual tumor from CR, nor does it provide sound basis for early escalation of therapy” |
| Swinnen et al49 | 4.6 y | 79% | 42%§ | 75% for 2-y PFS | 2-y PFS neg: 76% vs pos: 42% | 2-y OS neg: 93% vs pos: 77% | “Treatment modification based on early PET should remain confined to clinical trials” |
| Mamot et al23 | 24 mo | 40% at C2; 45% at C4 | 51.8%; 2-y EFS | 71% for 2-y EFS | 2-y EFS local visual: neg: 74.2% vs pos: 48.2%; Deauville central: neg: 75.9% vs pos: 41.4% | 2-y OS local visual: neg: 90.6% vs pos: 87.7%; Deauville central: neg: 93.9% vs pos: 84% | “has limited prognostic value”; “is not ready for clinical use to guide treatment decisions in individual patients” |
| Hertzberg et al31 | 35 mo | 71% at C4 | — | — | 2-y PFS: neg: 74% pos: 67% | 2-y OS: neg: 88% pos: 78% | “this study provides support for the further investigation of early selection of poor prognosis DLBCL patients, as identified by iPET scanning” |
—, data not available; CR, complete remission; EFS, event-free survival; IPI, International Prognostic Index; IWC, International Workshop Criteria; mFU, median follow-up; NHL, non-Hodgkin lymphoma; NPV, negative predictive value; OS, overall survival.
According to Han et al.9
†According to Han et al9 and Terasawa et al.10
‡Evaluated from publication by SLG and OC.
According to Terasawa et al.10