SCIENTIFIC AND INFORMATION-ANALYTICAL MAGAZINE

ISSN 1024-6177 (Print), ISSN 2618-9615 (Online)

JOURNAL DESCRIPTION

The Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety journal ISSN 1024-6177 was founded in January 1956 (before December 30, 1993 it was entitled Medical Radiology, ISSN 0025-8334). In 2018, the journal received Online ISSN: 2618-9615 and was registered as an electronic online publication in Roskomnadzor on March 29, 2018. It publishes original research articles which cover questions of radiobiology, radiation medicine, radiation safety, radiation therapy, nuclear medicine and scientific reviews. In general the journal has more than 30 headings and it is of interest for specialists working in thefields of medicine¸ radiation biology, epidemiology, medical physics and technology. Since July 01, 2008 the journal has been published by State Research Center - Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center of Federal Medical Biological Agency. The founder from 1956 to the present time is the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, and from 2008 to the present time is the Federal Medical Biological Agency.

Members of the editorial board are scientists specializing in the field of radiation biology and medicine, radiation protection, radiation epidemiology, radiation oncology, radiation diagnostics and therapy, nuclear medicine and medical physics. The editorial board consists of academicians (members of the Russian Academy of Science (RAS)), the full member of Academy of Medical Sciences of the Republic of Armenia, corresponding members of the RAS, Doctors of Medicine, professor, candidates and doctors of biological, physical mathematics and engineering sciences. The editorial board is constantly replenished by experts who work in the CIS and foreign countries.

Six issues of the journal are published per year, the volume is 13.5 conventional printed sheets, 88 printer’s sheets, 1.000 copies. The journal has an identical full-text electronic version, which, simultaneously with the printed version and color drawings, is posted on the sites of the Scientific Electronic Library (SEL) and the journal's website. The journal is distributed through the Rospechat Agency under the contract № 7407 of June 16, 2006, through individual buyers and commercial structures. The publication of articles is free.

The journal is included in the List of Russian Reviewed Scientific Journals of the Higher Attestation Commission. Since 2008 the journal has been available on the Internet and indexed in the RISC database which is placed on Web of Science. Since February 2nd, 2018, the journal "Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety" has been indexed in the SCOPUS abstract and citation database.

Brief electronic versions of the Journal have been publicly available since 2005 on the website of the Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety Journal: http://www.medradiol.ru. Since 2011, all issues of the journal as a whole are publicly available, and since 2016 - full-text versions of scientific articles. Since 2005, subscribers can purchase full versions of other articles of any issue only through the National Electronic Library. The editor of the Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety Journal in accordance with the National Electronic Library agreement has been providing the Library with all its production since 2005 until now.

The main working language of the journal is Russian, an additional language is English, which is used to write titles of articles, information about authors, annotations, key words, a list of literature.

Since 2017 the journal Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety has switched to digital identification of publications, assigning to each article the identifier of the digital object (DOI), which greatly accelerated the search for the location of the article on the Internet. In future it is planned to publish the English-language version of the journal Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety for its development. In order to obtain information about the publication activity of the journal in March 2015, a counter of readers' references to the materials posted on the site from 2005 to the present which is placed on the journal's website. During 2015 - 2016 years on average there were no more than 100-170 handlings per day. Publication of a number of articles, as well as electronic versions of profile monographs and collections in the public domain, dramatically increased the number of handlings to the journal's website to 500 - 800 per day, and the total number of visits to the site at the end of 2017 was more than 230.000.

The two-year impact factor of RISC, according to data for 2017, was 0.439, taking into account citation from all sources - 0.570, and the five-year impact factor of RISC - 0.352.

Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2018. Vol. 63. No. 6. P. 41–50

NUCLEAR MEDICINE

DOI: 10.12737/article_5c0b8d72a8bb98.40545646

V.I. Chernov1,2, E.A. Dudnikova1, V.E. Goldberg1, T.L. Kravchuk1, A.V. Danilova1, R.V. Zelchan1, A.A. Medvedeva1, I.G. Sinilkin1, O.D. Bragina1, N.O. Popova1, A.V. Goldberg1

Positron Emission Tomography in the Diagnosis and Monitoring of Lymphomas

1. Tomsk National Research Medical Center, Tomsk, Russia. E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ;
2. National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk, Russia.

V.I. Chernov – Deputy Director, Head of Dep., Dr. Sci. Med., Prof.; E.A. Dudnikova – Junior Researcher;
V.E. Goldberg – Deputy Director, Head of Dep., Dr. Sci. Med., Prof.; T.L. Kravchuk – hematologist, PhD Med.;
A.V. Danilova – hematologist; R.V. Zelchan – radiologist, PhD Med.; A.A. Medvedeva – Senior Researcher, PhD Med.;
I.G. Sinilkin – Senior Researcher, PhD Med.; O.D. Bragina   Junior Researcher, PhD Med.;
N.O. Popova – Senior Researcher, PhD Med.; A.V. Goldberg – Junior Researcher, PhD Med.

Abstract

Currently, 18F FDG-PET and 18F FDG-PET/CT are widely used for diagnosis and monitoring of lymphomas. The majority of aggressive lymphomas are characterized by high glycolytic activity, which enables the visualization by using 18F FDG-PET/CT. The use of PET/CT makes it possible to clarify the stage of the disease in 10–30 % of patients, with additional tumor sites typical for advanced stage of lymphomas, which in turn effects on treatment and disease prognosis. The 18F FDG-PET/CT has the advantage over other methods of radiation diagnosis in detecting bone marrow lesions in patients with lymphomas. It has been shown that 18F FDG-PET/CT performed at early stages of chemotherapy allows differentiating patients with favorable lymphoma, which is sufficient for standard therapy and high-risk patients who require more intensive treatment with high-dose regimens of chemotherapy.

After completion of therapy over 60 % of patients with HL and 40 % with aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas, have residual masses containing necrotic and/or fibrotic tissue and residual neoplastic cells. 18F FDG-PET and 18F FDG-PET/CT has been shown to be useful in identifying residual masses in 30–64 % of patients, by demonstration of persistent metabolic activity on FDG-PET. Between 62–100 % of patients with residual FDG-positive masses have been shown to relapse after first-line chemotherapy. Identification of patients with partial response to chemotherapy indicates the need for continued treatment.

New radiopharmaceuticals for the diagnosis of lymphoma and evaluation of therapy effectiveness are developed. Such promising radiopharmaceuticals are 18F fluorothymidine, a biomarker of cellular proliferation and Ga-68 CXCR4, a chemokine receptor imaging biomarker.

Key words: lymphomas, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas, PET/CT, 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose, 18F-fluorothymidine, 68Ga-CXCR4

REFERENCES

  1. Kaprin AD, Starinsky VV, Petrova GV. Malignant neoplasms in Russia in 2016 (morbidity and mortality). – Moscow. 2018. 250 p. (Russian).
  2. Rukavitsina OA. Hematology: national leadership. Moscow: Geotar-Media. 2015. 912 p. (Russian).
  3. Pelosi E, Pregno P, Penna D, Deandreis D, Chiappella A, Limerutti G, et al. Role of whole-body 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) and conventional techniques in the staging of patients with Hodgkin and aggressive non Hodgkin lymphoma. Radiol Med. 2008;113:578–90.
  4. Novikov SN, Girshovich MM. Diagnosis and staging of Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Problems of tuberculosis and lung diseases. 2007;8(2):65–72. (Russian).
  5. Valls L, Badve C, Avril S, Herrmann K, Faulhaber P, O’Donnell J, Avril N. FDG-PET Imaging in Hematological Malignancies. Blood Rev. 2016;30(4):317–331.
  6. Elstrom RL, Leonard JP, Coleman M, Brown RK. Combined PET and low-dose, noncontrast CT scanning obviates the need for additional diagnostic contrast-enhanced CT scans in patients undergoing staging or restaging for lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:1770–3.
  7. Cheson BD. Role of functional imaging in the management of lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:1844–54.
  8. Weiler-Sagie M, Bushelev O, Epelbaum R, Dann EJ, Haim N, Avivi I, et al. (18)F-FDG avidity in lymphoma readdressed: a study of 766 patients. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:25–30.
  9. Swerdlow SH, Campo E, Harris NL, Jaffe ES, Pileri SA, Stein H, et al. WHO Classification of Tumours of Haematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues. In: Bosman, FT.Jaffe, ES.Lakhani, SR, Ohgaki, H, editors. WHO Classification of Tumours. Lyon: IARC. 2008.
  10. Armitage JO, Weisenburger DD. New approach to classifying non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas: clinical features of the major histologic subtypes. Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Classification Project. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:2780–95.
  11. Lim MS, Beaty M, Sorbara L, Cheng RZ, Pittaluga S, Raffeld M, et al. T-cell/histiocyte-rich large B-cell lymphoma: a heterogeneous entity with derivation from germinal center B cells. Am J Surg Pathol. 2002;26:1458–66.
  12. Rosenberg SA. Validity of the Ann Arbor staging classification for the non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. Cancer Treat Rep. 1977;61:1023–7.
  13. Eichenauer DA, Engert A, Andre M, Federico M, Illidge T, Hutchings M, et al. Hodgkin‘s lymphoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(3):70–5.
  14. Hoster E, Dreyling M, Klapper W, Gisselbrecht C, van Hoof A, Kluin-Nelemans HC, et al. A new prognostic index (MIPI) for patients with advanced-stage mantle cell lymphoma. Blood. 2008;111:558–65.
  15. Cheson BD, Pfistner B, Juweid ME, Gascoyne RD, Specht L, Horning SJ, et al. Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:579–86.
  16. Moog F, Kotzerke J, Reske S.N. FDG PET can replace bone scintigraphy in primary staging of malignant lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 1999;40:1407–13.
  17. Adams HJ, Kwee TC, de Keizer B, Fijnheer R, de Klerk JM, Littooij AS, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis on the diagnostic performance of FDG-PET/CT in detecting bone marrow involvement in newly diagnosed Hodgkin lymphoma: is bone marrow biopsy still necessary?. Ann Oncol. 2014;25:921–7.
  18. Adams HJ, Kwee TC, de Keizer B, Fijnheer R, de Klerk JM, Nievelstein RA. FDG PET/CT for the detection of bone marrow involvement in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:565–74.
  19. Wu LM, Chen FY, Jiang XX, Gu HY, Yin Y, Xu JR. 18F-FDG PET, combined FDG-PET/CT and MRI for evaluation of bone marrow infiltration in staging of lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:303–11.
  20. Adams HJ, de Klerk JM, Fijnheer R, Heggelman BG, Dubois SV, Nievelstein RA, et al. Bone marrow biopsy in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: useful or redundant test? Acta Oncol. 2015;54:67–72.
  21. Lim ST, Tao M, Cheung YB, Rajan S, Mann B. Can patients with early-stage diffuse large B-cell lymphoma be treated without bone marrow biopsy? Ann Oncol. 2005;16:215–8.
  22. Berthet L, Cochet A, Kanoun S, Berriolo-Riedinger A, Humbert O, Toubeau M, et al. In newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, determination of bone marrow involvement with 18F-FDG PET/CT provides better diagnostic performance and prognostic stratification than does biopsy. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:1244–50.
  23. Richardson SE, Sudak J, Warbey V, Ramsay A, McNamara CJ. Routine bone marrow biopsy is not necessary in the staging of patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma in the 18F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography era. Leuk Lymphoma. 2012;53:381–5.
  24. Adams HJ, Kwee TC, Nievelstein RA. Prognostic implications of imaging-based bone marrow assessment in lymphoma: 18F-FDG PET, MR imaging, or 18F-FDG PET/MR imaging? J Nucl Med. 2013;54:2017–8.
  25. Dupuis J, Berriolo-Riedinger A, Julian A, Brice P, Tychyj-Pinel C, Tilly H, et al. Impact of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography response evaluation in patients with high-tumor burden follicular lymphoma treated with immunochemotherapy: a prospective study from the Groupe d’Etudes des Lymphomes de l’Adulte and GOELAMS. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:4317–22.
  26. Lowe VJ, Wiseman GA. Assessment of Lymphoma Therapy Using (18)F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2002;43:1028–30.
  27. A clinical evaluation of the International Lymphoma Study Group classification of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Classification Project. Blood. 1997;89:3909–18.
  28. Zijlstra JM, Lindauer-van der Werf G, Hoekstra OS, Hooft L, Riphagen II, Huijgens PC. 18F-fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography for post-treatment evaluation of malignant lymphoma: a systematic review. Haematologica. 2006;91:522–9.
  29. Naumann R, Vaic A, Beuthien-Baumann B, Bredow J, Kropp J, Kittner T, et al. 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.
  30. Jerusalem G, Beguin Y. The place of positron emission tomography imaging in the management of patients with malignant lymphoma. Haematologica. 2006;91:442–4.
  31. Thompson CA, Ghesquieres H, Maurer MJ, Cerhan JR, Biron P, Ansell SM, et al. Utility of routine post-therapy surveillance imaging in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3506–12.
  32. Bodet-Milin C, Eugène T, Gastinne T, Bailly C, Le Gouill S, Dupas B, et al. The role of FDG-PET scanning in assessing lymphoma in 2012. Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging. 2013;94:158–68.
  33. Dreyling M, Ghielmini M, Marcus R, Salles G, Vitolo U, Ladetto M, et al. Newly diagnosed and relapsed follicular lymphoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2014;2(3):76–82.
  34. Casasnovas RO, Meignan M, Berriolo-Riedinger A, Bardet S, Julian A, Thieblemont C, et al. SUVmax reduction improves early prognosis value of interim positron emission tomography scans in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Blood. 2011;118:37–43.
  35. Romer W, Hanauske AR, Ziegler S, Thodtmann R, Weber W, Fuchs C, et al. Positron emission tomography in non-Hodgkin‘s lymphoma: assessment of chemotherapy with fluorodeoxyglucose. Blood. 1998;91:4464–71.
  36. Radford J, Illidge T, Counsell N, Hancock B, Pettengell R, Johnson P, et al. Results of a Trial of PET-Directed Therapy for Early-Stage Hodgkin‘s Lymphoma. New England Journal of Medicine. 2015;372:1598–607.
  37. Dreyling M, Thieblemont C, Gallamini A, Arcaini L, Campo E, Hermine O, et al. ESMO Consensus conferences: guidelines on malignant lymphoma. Part 2: marginal zone lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, peripheral T-cell lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:857–77.
  38. Gallamini A, Barrington SF, Biggi A, Chauvie S, Kostakoglu L, Gregianin M, et al. The predictive role of interim positron emission tomography for Hodgkin lymphoma treatment outcome is confirmed using the interpretation criteria of the Deauville five-point scale. Haematologica. 2014;99:1107–13.
  39. Biggi A, Gallamini A, Chauvie S, Hutchings M, Kostakoglu L, Gregianin M, et al. International validation study for interim PET in ABVD-treated, advanced-stage hodgkin lymphoma: interpretation criteria and concordance rate among reviewers. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:683–90.
  40. Markova J, Kahraman D, Kobe C, Skopalova M, Mocikova H, Klaskova K, et al. Role of 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in early and late therapy assessment of patients with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma treated with bleomycin, etoposide, adriamycin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine and prednisone. Leuk Lymphoma. 2012;53:64–70.
  41. Kobe C, Kuhnert G, Kahraman D, Haverkamp H, Eich HT, Franke M, et al. Assessment of tumor size reduction improves outcome prediction of positron emission tomography/computed tomography after chemotherapy in advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:1776–81.
  42. Safar V, Dupuis J, Itti E, Jardin F, Fruchart C, Bardet S, et al. Interim 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography scan in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with anthracycline-based chemotherapy plus rituximab. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:184–90.
  43. Pfreundschuh M, Kuhnt E, Trumper L, Osterborg A, Trneny M, Shepherd L, et al. CHOP-like chemotherapy with or without rituximab in young patients with good-prognosis diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma: 6-year results of an open-label randomised study of the MabThera International Trial (MInT) Group. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:1013–22.
  44. Zhu Y, Lu J, Wei X, Song S, Huang G. The predictive value of interim and final 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography after rituximab-chemotherapy in the treatment of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a meta-analysis. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:275805.
  45. Nols N, Mounier N, Bouazza S, Lhommel R, Costantini S, Vander Borght T, et al. Quantitative and qualitative analysis of metabolic response at interim positron emission tomography scan combined with International Prognostic Index is highly predictive of outcome in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2014;55:773–80.
  46. Okada J, Oonishi H, Yoshikawa K, Itami J, Uno K, Imaseki K, et al. FDG-PET for predicting the prognosis of malignant lymphoma. Ann Nucl Med. 1994;8:187–91.
  47. Watanabe R, Tomita N, Takeuchi K, Sakata S, Tateishi U, Tanaka M, et al. SUVmax in FDG-PET at the biopsy site correlates with the proliferation potential of tumor cells in non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2010;51:279–83.
  48. Tsimberidou AM, Keating MJ. Richter syndrome: biology, incidence, and therapeutic strategies. Cancer. 2005;103:216–28.
  49. Herrmann K, Buck AK, Schuster T, Rudelius M, Wester HJ, Graf N, et al. A pilot study to evaluate 3´-deoxy-3´-18F-fluorothymidine PET for initial and early response imaging in mantle cell lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:1898–902.
  50. Wang RM, Zhu HY, Li F, Liu CB, Guan ZW, Yao SL. Value of 18F-FLT positron emission tomography/computed tomography in diagnosis and staging of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Zhongguo Shi Yan Xue Ye Xue Za Zhi. 2012;20:603–7.
  51. Hummel S, Van Aken H, Zarbock A. Inhibitors of CXC chemokine receptor type 4: putative therapeutic approaches in inflammatory diseases. Curr Opin Hematol. 2014;21:29–36.
  52. Hutchings M. Pre-transplant positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) in relapsed Hodgkin lymphoma: time to shift gears for PET-positive patients? Leuk Lymphoma. 2011;52:1615–6.
  53. Herrmann K, Buck AK, Schuster T, Junger A, Wieder HA, Graf N, et al. Predictive value of initial 18F-FLT uptake in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma receiving R-CHOP treatment. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:690–6.
  54. Herrmann K, Buck AK, Schuster T, Junger A, Wieder HA, Graf N, et al. Week one FLT-PET response predicts complete remission to R-CHOP and survival in DLBCL. Oncotarget. 2014;5:4050–9.
  55. Vanderhoek M, Juckett MB, Perlman SB, Nickles RJ, Jeraj R. Early assessment of treatment response in patients with AML using 18F-FLT PET imaging. Leuk Res. 2011;35:310–6.
  56. Gourni E, Demmer O, Schottelius M, D’Alessandria C, Schulz S, Dijkgraaf I, et al. PET of CXCR4 expression by a 68Ga-labeled highly specific targeted contrast agent. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:1803–10.
  57. Philipp-Abbrederis K, Herrmann K, Knop S, Schottelius M, Eiber M, Luckerath K, et al. In vivo molecular imaging of chemokine receptor CXCR4 expression in patients with advanced multiple myeloma. EMBO Mol Med. 2015;7:477–87.
  58. Herrmann K, Lapa C, Wester HJ, Schottelius M, Schiepers C, Eberlein U, et al. Biodistribution and radiation dosimetry for the chemokine receptor CXCR4-targeting probe 68Ga-pentixafor. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:410–6.
  59. Aslanidi IP, Mukhortova OV, Shurupova IV, Derevyanko EP, Katunina TA, Pivnik AV, Stroyakovskii DL. Positron emission tomography: clarifying the stage of the disease in malignant lymphomas. Clinical oncohematology. Fundamental research and clinical practice. 2010;3(2):119-129. (Russian).
  60. Al-Radi LS, Baryakh EA, Belousova IE, Bessmeltsev SS, Vorobiev VI, Votyakova OM, et al. Russian Clinical Recommendations for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Lymphoproliferative Diseases. Modern Oncology. 2014;3:6-126. (Russian).

For citation: Chernov VI, Dudnikova EA, Goldberg VE, Kravchuk TL, Danilova AV, Zelchan RV, Medvedeva AA, Sinilkin IG, Bragina OD, Popova NO, Goldberg AV. Positron Emission Tomography in the Diagnosis and Monitoring of Lymphomas. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2018;63(6):42-50. (Russian).

DOI: 10.12737/article_5c0b8d72a8bb98.40545646

PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)

Contact Information

 

46, Zhivopisnaya st., 123098, Moscow, Russia Phone: +7 (499) 190-95-51. E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Journal location

Attendance

2946452
Today
Yesterday
This week
Last week
This month
Last month
For all time
333
2962
3295
20395
44748
113593
2946452
Forecast today
2808

Your IP:216.73.216.100
Visitor Counter

© Журнал "Медицинская радиология и радиационная безопасность" 2020г.

Яндекс.Метрика

Наверх