Interim PET Evaluation in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Using Published Recommendations: Comparison of the Deauville 5-Point Scale and the ΔSUVmax Method
Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 62, pp. 37–42
Abstract
The value of interim 18F-FDG PET/CT (iPET)–guided treatment decisions in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) has been the subject of much debate. This investigation focuses on a comparison of the Deauville score and the change-in-SUVmax (ΔSUVmax) approach—2 methods to assess early metabolic response to standard chemotherapy in DLBCL. Methods: Of 609 DLBCL patients participating in the PET-Guided Therapy of Aggressive Non-Hodgkin Lymphomas trial, iPET scans of 596 patients originally evaluated using the ΔSUVmax method were available for post hoc assessment of the Deauville score. A commonly used definition of an unfavorable iPET result according to the Deauville score is an uptake greater than that of the liver, whereas an unfavorable iPET scan with regard to the ΔSUVmax approach is characterized as a relative reduction of the SUVmax between baseline and iPET staging of less than or equal to 66%. We investigated the 2 methods’ correlation and concordance by Spearman rank correlation coefficient and the agreement in classification, respectively. We further used Kaplan–Meier curves and Cox regression to assess differences in survival between patient subgroups defined by the prespecified cutoffs. Time-dependent receiver-operating-characteristic curve analysis provided information on the methods’ respective discrimination performance. Results: Deauville score and ΔSUVmax approach differed in their iPET-based prognosis. The ΔSUVmax approach outperformed the Deauville score in terms of discrimination performance—most likely because of a high number of false-positive decisions by the Deauville score. Cutoff-independent discrimination performance remained low for both methods, but cutoff-related analyses showed promising results. Both favored the ΔSUVmax approach, for example, for the segregation by iPET response, where the event-free survival hazard ratio was 3.14 (95% confidence interval, 2.22–4.46) for ΔSUVmax and 1.70 (95% confidence interval, 1.29–2.24) for the Deauville score. Conclusion: When considering treatment intensification, the currently used Deauville score cutoff of an uptake above that of the liver seems to be inappropriate and associated with potential harm for DLBCL patients. The ΔSUVmax criterion of a relative reduction in SUVmax of less than or equal to 66% should be considered as an alternative.
Authors 20
-
Institut für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie · Essen University Hospital
Affiliation as printed
Institut für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie, und Epidemiologie, Universitätsklinikum, Essen, Germany jan.rekowski@uk-essen.de
Institut für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie, und Epidemiologie, Universitätsklinikum, Essen, Germany
-
Affiliation as printed
Klinik für Hämatologie, Universitätsklinikum, Essen, Germany
-
Affiliation as printed
Klinik für Nuklearmedizin, Universitätsklinikum, Essen, Germany
-
Affiliation as printed
Klinik und Poliklinik für Nuklearmedizin, Universitätsklinikum, Leipzig, Germany
-
University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus
Affiliation as printed
Klinik für Nuklearmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany
-
Affiliation as printed
Zentrum für moderne Diagnostik (Zemodi), Zentrum für Nuklearmedizin und PET/CT, Bremen, Germany
-
Affiliation as printed
Klinik für Nuklearmedizin, Universitätsklinikum, Münster, Germany
-
Medizinische Hochschule Hannover
Affiliation as printed
Klinik für Nuklearmedizin, Medizinische Hochschule, Hannover, Germany
-
Affiliation as printed
Klinik für Nuklearmedizin, Universitätsklinikum, Jena, Germany
-
Affiliation as printed
Klinik für Diagnostische und Therapeutische Nuklearmedizin, Klinikum, Fulda, Germany
-
Affiliation as printed
Klinik für Nuklearmedizin, Universitätsklinikum, Aachen, Germany
-
Johannes Wesling Klinikum Minden
Affiliation as printed
Institut für Diagnostische Radiologie, Neuroradiologie, und Nuklearmedizin, Johannes Wesling Klinikum, Minden, Germany
-
Affiliation as printed
Klinik für nuklearmedizinische Diagnostik und Therapie, Ernst von Bergmann Klinikum, Potsdam, Germany
-
University Hospital Heidelberg
Affiliation as printed
Radiologische Klinik und Poliklinik, Universitätsklinikum, Heidelberg, Germany
-
Brüderkrankenhaus St. Josef Paderborn
Affiliation as printed
Klinik für Nuklearmedizin, Brüderkrankenhaus St. Josef, Paderborn, Germany
-
Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Affiliation as printed
Department of Nuclear Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
-
Medizinische Hochschule Hannover
Affiliation as printed
Stabsstelle Strahlenschutz und Abteilung Medizinische Physik, Medizinische Hochschule, Hannover, Germany; and
Stabsstelle Strahlenschutz und Abteilung Medizinische Physik, Medizinische Hochschule, Hannover, Germany
-
Affiliation as printed
Institut für Medizinische Informatik, Statistik, und Epidemiologie, Universität Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
-
Institut für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie · Essen University Hospital
Affiliation as printed
Institut für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie, und Epidemiologie, Universitätsklinikum, Essen, Germany
-
Affiliation as printed
Klinik für Hämatologie, Universitätsklinikum, Essen, Germany
Cited by 50 stored of 52
No patents citing this paper on Lens.org (checked 2026-10-06).