Page 133 - 18F-FDG PET as biomarker in aggressive lymphoma; technical and clinical validation

I-PET scans available for qualitative analysis
(n=513)
Patients who received I-PET scan (n=534)
Scans not used for analysis:
No DICOM format/incomplete series I-PET not interpretable due to missing baseline scan (n=2) (n=9)
Poor visual quality (n=2) Glucose> 11mmol/L (n=1)
Patients with I-PET and baseline PET for MTV analysis
(n=296)
I-PET scans received by central review team
(n=527)
Patients with I-PET and baseline PET for quantitative analysis
(n=367)
Baseline PET not eligible for MTV No combined PET/CT (n=22) analysis:
No DICOM format/incomplete series Low [ F]FDG uptake (n=2) Poor quality control* (n=17) Error in tool (n=16) 18 (n=13)
Glucose> 11mmol/L (n=1)
Reasons missing scans:
Not received for central review (n=7)
No I-PET performed: Protocol violation (n=20) Early death (n=8) Early PD (n=5) Other (n=4)
Toxicity (n=3)
Patients who also received baseline
(n=384)
Baseline PET not eligible for quantitative analysis:
No DICOM format/incomplete series
(n=17)
Patients eligible for the main HOVON-84 trial (n=574)
Continued
PET quality was acceptable when liver SUVmean was 1.3-3.0 and total image activity was between 50%-80% of total injected dose. Figure 1. Flowchart of PET scans available for I-PET4, ∆SUVmax, and baseline MTV analyses.
*
PD=progressive disease.
PET
PET improves DLBCL response predictors
131
6a