All content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals only. By acknowledging this message and accessing the information on this website you are confirming that you are a Healthcare Professional. If you are a patient or carer, please visit the Lymphoma Coalition.
The lym Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the lym Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The lym and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.
Now you can support HCPs in making informed decisions for their patients
Your contribution helps us continuously deliver expertly curated content to HCPs worldwide. You will also have the opportunity to make a content suggestion for consideration and receive updates on the impact contributions are making to our content.
Find out more
Create an account and access these new features:
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View lymphoma & CLL content recommended for you
Status of FDG-PET as a biomarker
In November 2016, Josée M. Zijlstra from VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands, and colleagues published an editorial in Haematologica discussing the recent developments in the use of FDG-PET, particularly iPET, as a biomarker in both HL and DLBCL.
The authors stated that given the wealth of data from studies in patients with HL, FDG-PET is reliable for use as a biomarker for early response and that adapting therapy in light of FDG-PET is already becoming commonplace within clinical practice.
The authors also stated that, when it comes to DLBCL patients, it is crucial to identify treatment non-responsive patients early in order to maximize the efficacy of second-line therapies. Additionally, some studies indicate that iPET is effective at predicting outcome, but there are inconsistencies in the study designs and it is not clear which method of assessment is more effective. However, the PETRA consortium is conducting an ongoing meta-analysis of trials using different methods of assessing iPET (e.g. SUVmax, ΔSUV, etc.) in DLBCL patients.
In summary, FDG-PET has been shown to be a reliable biomarker in HL treatment, but it is unclear how effective FDG-PET or iPET are as biomarkers for early response in DLBCL, and which method of scoring is most effective.
References