↓ Skip to main content

FDG PET in response evaluation of bulky masses in paediatric Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HL) patients enrolled in the Italian AIEOP-LH2004 trial

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
FDG PET in response evaluation of bulky masses in paediatric Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HL) patients enrolled in the Italian AIEOP-LH2004 trial
Published in
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, September 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00259-018-4155-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Egesta Lopci, Maurizio Mascarin, Arnoldo Piccardo, Angelo Castello, Caterina Elia, Luca Guerra, Eugenio Borsatti, Alessandra Sala, Alessandra Todesco, Pietro Zucchetta, Piero Farruggia, Angelina Cistaro, Salvatore Buffardi, Patrizia Bertolini, Maurizio Bianchi, Maria Luisa Moleti, Feisal Bunkheila, Paolo Indolfi, Franca Fagioli, Alberto Garaventa, Roberta Burnelli, AIEOP Hodgkin Lymphoma Study Group, Italy

Abstract

We present the results of an investigation of the role of FDG PET in response evaluation of bulky masses in paediatric patients with Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) enrolled in the Italian AIEOP-LH2004 trial. We analysed data derived from 703 patients (388 male, 315 female; mean age 13 years) with HL and enrolled in 41 different Italian centres from March 2004 to September 2012, all treated with the AIEOP-LH2004 protocol. The cohort comprised 309 patients with a bulky mass, of whom 263 were evaluated with FDG PET at baseline and after four cycles of chemotherapy. Responses were determined according to combined functional and morphological criteria. Patients were followed up for a mean period of 43 months and for each child we calculated time-to-progression (TTP) and relapse rates considering clinical monitoring, and instrumental and histological data as the reference standard. Statistical analyses were performed for FDG PET and morphological responses with respect to TTP. Multivariate analysis was used to define independent predictive factors. Overall, response evaluation revealed 238 PET-negative patients (90.5%) and 25 PET-positive patients (9.5%), with a significant difference in TTP between these groups (mean TTP: 32.67 months for negative scans, 23.8 months for positive scans; p < 0.0001, log-rank test). In the same cohort, computed tomography showed a complete response (CR) in 85 patients (32.3%), progressive disease (PD) in 6 patients (2.3%), and a partial response (PR) in 165 patients (62.7%), with a significant difference in TTP between patients with CR and patients with PD (31.1 months and 7.9 months, respectively; p < 0.001, log-rank test). Similarly, there was a significant difference in relapse rates between PET-positive and PET-negative patients (p = 0000). In patients with PR, there was also a significant difference in TTP between PET-positive and PET-negative patients (24.6 months and 34.9 months, respectively; p < 0.0001). In the multivariate analysis with correction for multiple testing, only the PET result was an independent predictive factor in both the entire cohort of patients and the subgroup showing PR on CT (p < 0.01). After four cycles of chemotherapy, FDG PET response assessment in paediatric HL patients with a bulky mass is a good predictor of TTP and disease outcome. Moreover, in patients with a PR on CT, PET was able to differentiate those with a longer TTP. In paediatric HL patients with a bulky mass and in patients with a PR on CT, response on FDG PET was an independent predictive factor.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 22%
Other 6 17%
Student > Postgraduate 4 11%
Professor 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 7 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Psychology 1 3%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 8 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 September 2018.
All research outputs
#21,153,429
of 23,806,312 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
#2,610
of 3,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#296,221
of 339,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
#43
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,806,312 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,083 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 339,238 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.