Impact of baseline and interim quantitative PET parameters on outcomes of classical Hodgkin Lymphoma.
Fernanda Maria SantosJose Flavio Gomes MarinMarcos Santos LimaWellington Fernandes Silva-JuniorLucas Bassolli O AlvesFrederico R MoreiraRodrigo Dolphini VelasquesMarcelo Junqueira AtanazioAna Carolina Arrais MaiaCarlos A BuchpiguelValeria BuccheriVanderson RochaPublished in: Annals of hematology (2023)
Currently, analysis of interim PET (iPET) according to the Deauville score (DS) is the most important predictive factor in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL); however, there is room for improvement in its prognostic power. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of quantitative PET analysis (maximum standard uptake value [SUV max ], total metabolic tumor volume [TMTV] and total lesion glicolysis [TLG]) at baseline (PET0) and iPET in a retrospective cohort of newly diagnosed classical HL. For positive iPET (+ iPET), the reduction of quantitative parameters in relation to PET0 (ΔSUV max , ΔTMTV and ΔTLG) was calculated. Between 2011 and 2017, 234 patients treated with ABVD were analyzed. Median age was 30 years-old, 59% had advanced stage disease, 57% a bulky mass and 25% a + iPET (DS 4-5). At baseline, high TLG was associated with an increased cumulative incidence of failure (CIF) (p = 0.032) while neither SUV max , TMTV or TLG were associated with overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS). In multivariate analysis, only iPET was associated with CIF (p < 0.001). Among ΔSUV max , ΔTMTV and ΔTLG, only a ΔSUV max ≥ 68.8 was significant for PFS (HR: 0.31, CI95%: 0.11-0.86, p = 0.024). A subset of patients with improved PFS amongst + iPET was identified by the quantitative (ΔSUV max ≥ 68.8%) analysis. In this real-world Brazilian cohort, with prevalent high-risk patients, quantitative analysis of PET0 did not demonstrate to be prognostic, while a dynamic approach incorporating the ΔSUV max to + iPET succeeded in refining a subset with better prognosis. These findings warrant validation in larger series and indicate that not all patients with + iPET might need treatment intensification.