Multicenter Comparison of Contrast-Enhanced FDG PET/CT and 64-Slice Multi-Detector-Row CT for Initial Staging and Response Evaluation at the End of Treatment in Patients with Lymphoma

  1. León, N.G. 16
  2. Delgado-Bolton, R.C. 23812
  3. Del Campo Del Val, L. 6
  4. Cabezas, B. 5
  5. Arranz, R. 6
  6. García, M. 5
  7. Cannata, J. 5
  8. González Ortega, S. 6
  9. Pérez Sáez, A.M. 4
  10. López-Botet, B. 9
  11. Rodríguez-Vigil, B. 10
  12. Mateo, M. 5
  13. Colletti, P.M. 11
  14. Rubello, D. 7
  15. Carreras, J.L. 8
  1. 1 Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/01cby8j38

  2. 2 Centro de Investigación Biomédica de La Rioja
    info

    Centro de Investigación Biomédica de La Rioja

    Logroño, España

    ROR https://ror.org/03vfjzd38

  3. 3 Universidad de La Rioja
    info

    Universidad de La Rioja

    Logroño, España

    ROR https://ror.org/0553yr311

  4. 4 Department of Haematology, United Kingdom
  5. 5 Hospital Clínico San Carlos de Madrid
    info

    Hospital Clínico San Carlos de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/04d0ybj29

  6. 6 Hospital Universitario de la Princesa
    info

    Hospital Universitario de la Princesa

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/03cg5md32

  7. 7 Department of Nuclear Medicine, Imaging and Clinical Pathology, Santa Maria della Misericordia Hospital, Rovigo, Italy
  8. 8 Nuclear Institute for Agriculture and Biology
    info

    Nuclear Institute for Agriculture and Biology

    Faisalābad, Pakistán

    ROR https://ror.org/01cyxvw51

  9. 9 Fundación Jiménez Díaz
    info

    Fundación Jiménez Díaz

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/049nvyb15

  10. 10 Hospital Txagorritxu
    info

    Hospital Txagorritxu

    Vitoria, España

    ROR https://ror.org/01pzjt917

  11. 11 University of Southern California
    info

    University of Southern California

    Los Ángeles, Estados Unidos

    ROR https://ror.org/03taz7m60

  12. 12 Hospital San Pedro
    info

    Hospital San Pedro

    Logroño, España

    ROR https://ror.org/031va0421

Zeitschrift:
Clinical Nuclear Medicine

ISSN: 0363-9762

Datum der Publikation: 2017

Ausgabe: 42

Nummer: 8

Seiten: 595-602

Art: Artikel

DOI: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000001718 SCOPUS: 2-s2.0-85020731260 WoS: WOS:000404965100016 GOOGLE SCHOLAR

Andere Publikationen in: Clinical Nuclear Medicine

Institutionelles Archiv: lock_openOpen Access editor

Indikatoren

Zitate erhalten

  • Zitate in Scopus: 20 (01-09-2023)
  • Zitate in 'Web of Science': 20 (15-09-2023)
  • Zitate in Dimensions: 23 (30-03-2023)

JCR (Journal Impact Factor)

  • Jahr 2017
  • Impact Factor der Zeitschrift: 6.309
  • Impact Factor ohne Selbstzitierung: 4.126
  • Article influence score: 0.882
  • Höchstes Quartil: Q1
  • Bereich: RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Quartil: Q1 Position im Bereich: 6/129 (Ausgabe: SCIE)

SCImago Journal Rank

  • Jahr 2017
  • Impact SJR der Zeitschrift: 0.652
  • Höchstes Quartil: Q2
  • Bereich: Medicine (miscellaneous) Quartil: Q2 Position im Bereich: 1051/2937
  • Bereich: Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging Quartil: Q2 Position im Bereich: 114/358

Scopus CiteScore

  • Jahr 2017
  • CiteScore der Zeitschrift: 2.3
  • Bereich: Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging Perzentil: 48

Journal Citation Indicator (JCI)

  • Jahr 2017
  • JCI der Zeitschrift: 0.98
  • Höchstes Quartil: Q1
  • Bereich: RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Quartil: Q1 Position im Bereich: 35/181

Dimensions

(Aktualisierte Daten ab 30-03-2023)
  • Gesamtzitate: 23
  • Letzten Termine: 10
  • Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): 0.88
  • Field Citation Ratio (FCR): 6.67

Zusammenfassung

Objectives To compare staging correctness between contrast-enhanced FDG PET/ceCT and 64-slice multi-detector-row CT (ceCT64) for initial staging and response evaluation at the end of treatment (EOT) in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma, diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), and follicular lymphoma. Methods This prospective study compared initial staging and response evaluation at EOT. One hundred eighty-one patients were randomly assigned to either ceCT64 or FDG PET/ceCT. A nuclear medicine physician and a radiologist read FDG PET/ceCT scans independently and achieved post hoc consensus, whereas another independent radiologist interpreted ceCT64 separately. The reference standard included all clinical information, all tests, and follow-up. Ethics committees of the participating centers approved the study, and all participants provided written consent. Results Ninety-one patients were randomized to ceCT64 and 90 to FDG PET/ceCT; 72 had Hodgkin lymphoma, 72 had DLBCL, and 37 had follicular lymphoma. There was excellent correlation between the reference standard and initial staging for both FDG PET/ceCT (κ = 0.96) and ceCT64 (κ = 0.84), although evaluation of the response at EOT was excellent only for FDG PET/ceCT (κ = 0.91). Conclusions Our study demonstrated satisfactory agreement between FDG PET/ceCT (κ = 0.96) and ceCT64 (κ = 0.84) in initial staging compared with the reference standard (P = 0.16). Response evaluation at EOT with FDG PET/ceCT (κ = 0.91) was superior compared with ceCT64 (κ = 0.307) (P < 0.001). © 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.