Clinical Value Of¹⁸F-FDG PET-CT In Evaluation Of Curative Effect On Lymphoma

Objective: To explore the clinical value of¹⁸F-FDG PET-CT in evaluation of curativeeffect on malignant lymphoma and the meaning of SUV values in evaluation of lymphoma.Subjects and Methods：Retrospectively analyzed34cases of lymphoma, total102lesions confirmed by histology in our hospital during2008.01-2012.03. All patientsunderwent whole body¹⁸F-FDG PET-CT scans before and after chemotherapy. Bymeasuring SUVmax and Dmax, we compared clinical value of PET and CT in evaluation ofcurative effect on malignant lymphoma after chemotherapy.12cases of DLBCL who takenR-chop chemotherapy underwent PET-CT examination for three times: before treatment（PET-CT0）, after2cycles of chemotherapy（PET-CT2） and after4cycles of chemotherapy（PET-CT4）. SUVmax value was explored during treatment. One-year PFS of18PET-CTpositive or negative DLBCL patients （PET-CT positive in10cases, negative in8cases） whohave reached CR or PR with12-24months of clinical follow-up were compared.Results:1.Evaluation of curative effect after the chemotherapy: There wassignificant difference between SUVmax and Dmax before and after chemotherapy onlymphoma patients（P<0.05）. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negativepredictive value of PET and CT in evaluation of chemotherapy outcomes were95.8%,80%,92%,88.9%;66.7%,60%,80%,42.9%, respectively.2.Evaluation of curative effectduring chemotherapy: There was significant difference of SUVmax between（PET-CT0）and after2cycles （PET-CT2）of chemotherapy（,P<0.05）. There was significant differencebetween both SUVmax and Dmax before（PET-CT0）and after4cycles （PET-CT4）ofchemotherapy （P<0.05）.3.1-year PFS of PET-CT positive versus negative patients: ForPET-CT positive patients, PFS>1year accounted for20%（2/10）, PFS <1year accounted for80%（8/10）; For PET-CT-negative patients, PFS>1year accounted for75%（6/8）, PFS <1year accounted for25%（2/8）.Conclusion:（1） In evaluation curative effect on malignant lymphoma during and aftertreatment, PET was significantly better than CT. PET-CT as combination of PET with CT had more advantages.（2） One year progression-free survival of those patients with PET-CTpositive was significantly lower than that of PET-CT negative.