PET scan for the detection of histological transformation of follicular lymphoma: A systematic review of diagnostic performance.

IF 6.9 2区 医学 Q1 HEMATOLOGY Blood Reviews Pub Date : 2025-01-28 DOI:10.1016/j.blre.2025.101270
Marc Sorigue, Milos Miljkovic, Pablo Mozas
{"title":"PET scan for the detection of histological transformation of follicular lymphoma: A systematic review of diagnostic performance.","authors":"Marc Sorigue, Milos Miljkovic, Pablo Mozas","doi":"10.1016/j.blre.2025.101270","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The strength of evidence supporting use of PET in the evaluation of suspected histological transformation (HT) of follicular lymphoma (FL) is unknown. We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting the diagnostic performance of ≥1 PET parameters for the detection of HT in patients with known FL. We searched PubMed for any study reporting ≥1 diagnostic performance metrics. Risk of bias was evaluated with the QUADAS2 tool. We included 7 studies encompassing 152 patients with a biopsy showing FL (or indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma) and 111 with a biopsy confirming HT. Study designs and study populations differed substantially. PET methods were poorly reported and <sup>18</sup>F-FDG dose was highly variable. Most studies were judged to be at high risk of bias in the patient and index test domains of QUADAS2. The diagnostic performance of 5 PET parameters were reported in at least one study but only SUVmax (n = 7) was reported in >2. Median SUVmax ranged from 9.2 to 10.9 in FL/iNHL and from 13.7 to 24.4 in HT. While SUVmax was consistently higher in the HT group, there was considerable overlap between the two groups and significant variability between studies. Area under the ROC curve for SUVmax to distinguish between FL/iNHL and HT ranged from 0.68 to 0.97. Sensitivity and specificity of the proposed cutoffs also varied widely (sensitivity ∼0.6 to 1, specificity ∼0.4 to 1). In conclusion, few studies - mostly small and potentially biased - have addressed this question. Although SUVmax is generally higher in HT than in FL, the diagnostic performance and optimal cutoffs remain unclear. Proposed SUVmax cutoffs should not be used to determine whether a patient has HT or to decide whether a biopsy should be obtained. For now, we encourage physicians to evaluate results of their own practice to devise a prudent workup of suspected.</p>","PeriodicalId":56139,"journal":{"name":"Blood Reviews","volume":" ","pages":"101270"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Blood Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.blre.2025.101270","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The strength of evidence supporting use of PET in the evaluation of suspected histological transformation (HT) of follicular lymphoma (FL) is unknown. We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting the diagnostic performance of ≥1 PET parameters for the detection of HT in patients with known FL. We searched PubMed for any study reporting ≥1 diagnostic performance metrics. Risk of bias was evaluated with the QUADAS2 tool. We included 7 studies encompassing 152 patients with a biopsy showing FL (or indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma) and 111 with a biopsy confirming HT. Study designs and study populations differed substantially. PET methods were poorly reported and 18F-FDG dose was highly variable. Most studies were judged to be at high risk of bias in the patient and index test domains of QUADAS2. The diagnostic performance of 5 PET parameters were reported in at least one study but only SUVmax (n = 7) was reported in >2. Median SUVmax ranged from 9.2 to 10.9 in FL/iNHL and from 13.7 to 24.4 in HT. While SUVmax was consistently higher in the HT group, there was considerable overlap between the two groups and significant variability between studies. Area under the ROC curve for SUVmax to distinguish between FL/iNHL and HT ranged from 0.68 to 0.97. Sensitivity and specificity of the proposed cutoffs also varied widely (sensitivity ∼0.6 to 1, specificity ∼0.4 to 1). In conclusion, few studies - mostly small and potentially biased - have addressed this question. Although SUVmax is generally higher in HT than in FL, the diagnostic performance and optimal cutoffs remain unclear. Proposed SUVmax cutoffs should not be used to determine whether a patient has HT or to decide whether a biopsy should be obtained. For now, we encourage physicians to evaluate results of their own practice to devise a prudent workup of suspected.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Blood Reviews
Blood Reviews 医学-血液学
CiteScore
13.80
自引率
1.40%
发文量
78
期刊介绍: Blood Reviews, a highly regarded international journal, serves as a vital information hub, offering comprehensive evaluations of clinical practices and research insights from esteemed experts. Specially commissioned, peer-reviewed articles authored by leading researchers and practitioners ensure extensive global coverage across all sub-specialties of hematology.
期刊最新文献
Classic Hodgkin lymphoma: Pathobiological features that impact emerging therapies. PET scan for the detection of histological transformation of follicular lymphoma: A systematic review of diagnostic performance. BTKi-induced cardiovascular toxicity in CLL: Risk mitigation and management strategies. Radiotherapeutics, clonal hematopoiesis, and risk of hematologic malignancies: The good, the bad, the ugly. Corrigendum to "Impact of transcranial Doppler screening on stroke prevention in children and adolescents with sickle cell disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis" [Blood Reviews (2024) 101253].
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1