Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-15T07:57:37.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

15 - International staging and response criteria for lymphomas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2011

Bruce D. Cheson
Affiliation:
Georgetown University Hospital, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington DC, USA
Susan O'Brien
Affiliation:
University of Texas/MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
Julie M. Vose
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha
Hagop M. Kantarjian
Affiliation:
University of Texas/MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The goal of lymphoma therapy is to improve the outcome of patients by reducing the size of or completely eradicating the disease, and/or by causing a decrease in disease-related symptoms. Although major progress has been made in the treatment of patients with lymphoma, many still fail to achieve a response or subsequently relapse. Thus, new therapies are needed to improve patient outcome. In order to identify promising regimens and reliably compare the results with existing therapies, it is critical to have uniform definitions of the extent of disease prior to therapy and measurements of efficacy following treatment. In the absence of active agents, response criteria are irrelevant. However, because of the increasing number of effective treatment options for lymphoma, standardized response criteria are necessary to assess and compare the activity of various therapies within and among studies, and facilitate the evaluation of new treatments by regulatory agencies.

In 1999, an international working group (IWG) of clinicians, radiologists, and pathologists with expertise in the evaluation and management of patients with lymphoma developed guidelines that standardized a number of important components of patient assessment. Since response is most often measured by the change in size of lymph nodes, the first goal was to define the size of a “normal” node, which previously had varied widely among studies. Even minor variations in what is considered “normal” lymph node size can result in major differences in the complete response rate following therapy.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Cheson, BD, Horning, SJ, Coiffier, B, et al. Report of an international workshop to standardize response criteria for non-Hodgkin's lymphomas. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:1244–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grillo-López, AJ, Cheson, BD, Horning, SJ, et al. Response criteria for NHL: importance of “normal” lymph node size and correlations with response rates. Ann Oncol 2000;11:399–408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dorfman, RE, Alpern, MB, Gross, BH, et al. Upper abdominal lymph nodes: criteria for normal size determined with CT. Radiology 1991;180:319–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Einstein, DM, Singer, AA, Chilcote, WA, et al. Abdominal lymphadenopathy: spectrum of CT findings. RadioGraphics 1991;11:457–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glazer, GM, Gross, BH, Quint, , et al. Normal mediastinal lymph nodes: number and size according to American Thoracic Society mapping. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1985;144:261–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kiyono, K, Sone, S, Sakai, F, et al. The number and size of normal mediastinal lymph nodes: a postmortem study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1988;150:771–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steinkamp, HJ, Hosten, N, Richter, C, et al. Enlarged cervical lymph nodes at helical CT. Radiology 1994;191:795–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheson, BD, Pfistner, B, Juweid, ME, et al. Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:579–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newman, JS, Francis, JR, Kaminski, MS, et al. Imaging of lymphoma with PET with 2-[F-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose: correlation with CT. Radiology 1994;190:111–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thill, R, Neuerburg, J, Fabry, U, et al. Comparison of findings with 18-FDG PET and CT in pretherapeutic staging of malignant lymphoma. Nuklearmedizin 1997;36:234–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Fuks, JZ, Aisner, J, Wiernik, PH. Restaging laparotomy in the management of the non-Hodgkin lymphomas. Med Pediatr Oncol 1982;10:429–38.Google ScholarPubMed
Stewart, FM, Williamson, BR, Innes, DJ, et al. Residual tumor masses following treatment for advanced histiocytic lymphoma. Cancer 1985;55:620–3.3.0.CO;2-7>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Surbone, A, Longo, DL, DeVita, VT, et al. Residual abdominal masses in aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after combination chemotherapy: significance and management. J Clin Oncol 1988;6:1832–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stumpe, KD, Urbinelli, M, Steinert, HC, et al. Whole-body positron emission tomography using fluorodeoxyglucose for staging of lymphoma: effectiveness and comparison with computed tomography. Eur J Nucl Med 1998;25:721–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Longo, DL, DeVita, VT, Duffey, PL, et al. Superiority of ProMACE-CytaBOM over ProMACE-MOPP in the treatment of advanced diffuse aggressive lymphoma: results of a prospective randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 1991;9:25–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Radford, JA, Cowan, RA, Flanagan, M, et al. The significance of residual mediastinal abnormality on the chest radiograph following treatment for Hodgkin's disease. J Clin Oncol 1988;6:940–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carbone, PP, Kaplan, HS, Musshoff, K, et al. Report of the Committee on Hodgkin's Disease Staging Classification. Cancer Res 1971;31:1860–1.Google Scholar
Jerusalem, G, Warland, V, Najjar, F, et al. 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moog, F, Bangerter, M, Diederichs, CG, et al. Lymphoma: role of whole-body 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]-D-glucose (FDG) PET in nodal staging. Radiology 1997;203:795–800.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moog, F, Bangerter, M, Diederichs, CG, et al. Extranodal malignant lymphoma: detection with FDG PET versus CT. Radiology 1998;206:475–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buchmann, I, Reinhardt, M, Elsner, K, et al. 2-(fluorine-18)fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in the detection and staging of malignant lymphoma. A bicenter trial. Cancer 2001;91:889–99.3.0.CO;2-5>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bangerter, M, Moog, F, Buchmann, I, et al. Whole-body 2-[18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for accurate staging of Hodgkin's disease. Ann Oncol 1998;9:1117–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jerusalem, G, Beguin, Y, Najjar, F, et al. Positron emission tomography (PET) with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) for the staging of low-grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). Ann Oncol 2001;12:825–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blum, RH, Seymour, JF, Wirth, A, et al. Frequent impact of [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography on the staging and management of patients with indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Clin Lymphoma 2004;4:43–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jerusalem, G, Beguin, Y, Fassotte, MF, et al. Whole-body positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose compared to standard procedures for staging patients with Hodgkin's disease. Haematologica 2001;86:266–73.Google ScholarPubMed
Partridge, S, Timothy, A, O'Doherty, MJ, et al. 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;11:1273–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weihrauch, MR, Re, D, Bischoff, S, et al. Whole-body positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose for initial staging of patients with Hodgkin's disease. Ann Hematol 2002;81:20–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Menzel, C, Dobert, N, Mitrou, P, et al. Positron emission tomography for the staging of Hodgkin's lymphoma – increasing the body of evidence in favor of the method. Ann Oncol 2002;41:430–6.Google ScholarPubMed
Naumann, R, Beuthien-Baumann, B, Reiss, A, et al. Substantial impact of FDG PET imaging on the therapy decision in patients with early-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma. Br J Cancer 2004;90:620–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hutchings, M, Loft, A, Hansen, M, et al. Positron emission tomography with or without computed tomography in the primary staging of Hodgkin's lymphoma. Haematologica 2006;91:482–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Schaefer, NG, Hany, TF, Taverna, C, et al. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Hodgkin disease: coregistered FDG PET and CT at staging and restaging – do we need contrast-enhanced CT?Radiology 2004;232:823–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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;104:1066–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moog, F, Bangerter, M, Kotzerke, J, et al. 18-F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography as a new approach to detect lymphomatous bone marrow. Blood 1998;16:603–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Carr, R, Barrington, SF, Madan, B, et al. Detection of lymphoma in bone marrow by whole-body positron emission tomography. Blood 1998;91:3340–6.Google ScholarPubMed
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;46:958–63.Google ScholarPubMed
Munker, R, Glass, J, Griffeth, LK, et al. Contribution of PET imaging to the initial staging and prognosis of patients with Hodgkin's disease. Ann Oncol 2004;15:1699–704.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karam, M, Novak, L, Cyriac, J, et al. Role of fluorine-18 fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography scan in the evaluation and follow-up of patients with low-grade lymphoma. Cancer 2006;107:175–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rigacci, L, Vitolo, U, Nassi, L, et al. Positron emission tomography in the staging of patients with Hodgkin's lymphoma. A prospective multicentric study by the Intergruppo Italiano Linfomi. Ann Hematol 2007;86:897–903.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tatsumi, M, Cohade, C, Nakamoto, Y, et al. Direct comparison of FDG PET and CT findings in patients with lymphoma: initial experience. Radiology 2005;237:1038–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raanani, P, Shasha, Y, Perry, C, et al. Is CT scan still necessary for staging in Hodgkin and nonHodgkin lymphoma patients in the PET/CT era?Ann Oncol 2006;17:117–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fougère, C, Hundt, W, Bröckel, N, et al. Value of PET/CT versus PET and CT performed as separate investigations in patients with Hodgkin's disease and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006.
Querellou, S, Valette, F, Bodet-Milin, C, et al. FDG-PET/CT predicts outcome in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and Hodgkin's disease. Ann Hematol 2006;85:759–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allen-Auerbach, M, Quon, A, Weber, WA, et al. Comparison between 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose positron emission tomography and positron emission tomography/computed tomography hardware fusion for staging of patients with lymphoma. Mol Imaging Biol 2004;6:411–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kwee, TC, Kwee, RM, Nievelstein, RA. Imaging in staging of malignant lymphoma: a systematic review. Blood 2008;111:504–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fougere, C, Hundt, W, Brockel, N, et al. Value of PET/CT versus PET and CT performed as separate investigations in patients with Hodgkin's disease and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006;33:1417–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Juweid, M, Cheson, BD. Positron emission tomography (PET) in post-therapy assessment of cancer. New Engl J Med 2006;354:496–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jerusalem, G, Beguin, Y, Fassotte, MF, et al. 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;94:429–33.Google Scholar
Zinzani, PL, Magagnoli, M, Chierichetti, F, et al. The role of positron emission tomography (PET) in the management of lymphoma patients. Ann Oncol 1999;10:1141–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weihrauch, MR, Re, D, Scheidhauer, K, et al. Thoracic positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose for the evaluation of residual mediastinal Hodgkin disease. Blood 2001;98:2930–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spaepen, K, Stroobants, S, Dupont, P, et al. 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;19:414–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spaepen, K, Stroobants, S, Dupont, P, et al. Can positron emission tomography with [18F]-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;115:272–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juweid, M, Wiseman, GA, Vose, JM, et al. Response assessment of aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma by integrated International Workshop Criteria (IWC) and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET). J Clin Oncol 2005;23:4652–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zijlstra, JM, Lindauer-van der Werf, G, Hoekstra, OS, et al. 18F-fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography for post-treatment evaluation of malignant lymphoma: a systematic review. Haematologica 2006;91:522–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Castellucci, P, Nanni, C, Farsad, M, et al. Potential pitfalls of 18F-FDG PET in a large series of patients treated for malignant lymphoma: prevalence and scan interpretation. Nucl Med Commun 2005;26:689–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zinzani, PL, Stefoni, V, Tani, M, et al. Role of [18F] Fluorodeoxy glucose positron emission tomography scan in the follow-up of lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:1781–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spaepen, K, Stroobants, S, Dupont, P, et al. Prognostic value of pretransplantation positron emission tomography using fluorine 18-fluorodeoxyglucose in patients with aggressive lymphoma treated with high-dose chemotherapy and stem cell transplantation. Blood 2003;102:53–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spaepen, K, Stroobants, S, Dupont, P, et al. Early restaging positron emission tomography with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose predicts outcome in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Ann Oncol 2002;13:1356–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haioun, C, Itti, E, Rahmouni, A, et al. [18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in aggressive lymphoma: an early prognostic tool for predicting patient outcome. Blood 2005;106:1376–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zinzani, PL, Tani, M, Fanti, S, et al. Early positron emission tomography (PET) restaging: a predictive final response in Hodgkin's disease patients. Ann Oncol 2006;17:1296–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kostakoglu, L, Goldsmith, SJ, Leonard, JP, et al. FDG-PET after 1 cycle of therapy predicts outcome in diffuse large cell lymphoma and classic Hodgkin disease. Cancer 2006;107:2678–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moskowitz, C, Hamlin, PA, Horwitz, SM, et al. Phase II trial of dose-dense R-CHOP followed by risk-adapted consolidation with either ICE or ICE and ASCT, based upon the results of biopsy confirmed abnormal interim restaging PET scan, improves outcome in patients with advanced stage DLBCL. Blood 2006;108(part 1):161a (Abstract 532).Google Scholar
Terasawa, T, Lau, J, Bardet, S, et al. Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for interim response assessment of advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a systematic review. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:1906–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pfistner, B, Diehl, V, Cheson, B. International harmonization of trial parameters in malignant lymphoma. Eur J Haematol Suppl 2005;66:53–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Assouline, S, Meyer, RM, Infante-Rivard, C, et al. Development of adapted RECIST criteria to assess response in lymphoma and their comparison to the International Workshop Criteria. Leuk Lymphoma 2007;48:513–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheson, BD. Overcoming mechanisms of RECISTance in lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma 2007;48:447–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Juweid, ME, Stroobants, S, Hoekstra, OS, et al. Use of positron emission tomography for response assessment of lymphoma: consensus recommendations of the Imaging Subcommittee of the International Harmonization Project in Lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:571–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brepoels, L, Stroobants, S, Wever, W, et al. Aggressive and indolent non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: response assessment by integrated international workshop criteria. Leuk Lymphoma 2007;48:1522–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zelenetz, AD, Advani, RH, Buadi, F, et al. Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2006;4(3):258–310.Google Scholar
Hoppe, RT, Advani, RH, Bierman, PJ, et al. Hodgkin disease/lymphoma. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Comp Canc Netw 2006;4(3):210–30.Google Scholar
Weeks, JC, Yeap, BY, Canellos, GP, et al. Value of follow-up procedures in patients with large-cell lymphoma who achieve a complete remission. J Clin Oncol 1991;9:1196–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oh, YK, Ha, CS, Samuels, BI, et al. Stages I-III follicular lymphoma: role of CT of the abdomen and pelvis in follow-up studies. Radiology 1999;210:483–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foltz, LM, Song, KW, Connors, JM. Who actually detects relapse in Hodgkin lymphoma: patient or physician? Blood 2004;104(part 1):853–4a (Abstract 3124).Google Scholar
Liedtke, M, Hamlin, PA, Moskowitz, CH, et al. Surveillance imaging during remission identifies a group of patients with more favorable aggressive NHL at time of relapse: a retrospective analysis of a uniformly-treated patient population. Ann Oncol 2006;17:909–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jerusalem, G, Beguin, Y, Fassotte, MF, et al. Early detection of relapse by whole-body positron emission tomography in the follow-up of patients with Hodgkin's disease. Ann Oncol 2003;14:123–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sehn, LH, Savage, K, Hoskins, P, et al. Limited-stage DLBCL patients with a negative PET scan following three cycles of R-CHOP have an excellent outcome following abbreviated immuno-chemotherapy. Ann Oncol 2008;19 Suppl 4:Abstract 052.Google Scholar
Sehn, LH, Hoskins, P, Klasa, R, et al. FDG-PET scan guided consolidative radiation therapy may improve outcome in patients with advanced-stage aggressive NHL with residual abnormalities on CT scan following chemotherapy. Ann Oncol 2008;19 Suppl 4:Abstract 126.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×