Skip to main content

18.02.2021 | Original Article Open Access

Baseline PET/CT imaging parameters for prediction of treatment outcome in Hodgkin and diffuse large B cell lymphoma: a systematic review

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
R. Frood, C. Burton, C. Tsoumpas, A. F. Frangi, F. Gleeson, C. Patel, A. Scarsbrook
Wichtige Hinweise

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00259-021-05233-2.
This article is part of the Topical Collection on Oncology - General.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.



To systematically review the literature evaluating clinical utility of imaging metrics derived from baseline fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) for prediction of progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL).


A search of MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, Scopus and databases was undertaken for articles evaluating PET/CT imaging metrics as outcome predictors in HL and DLBCL. PRISMA guidelines were followed. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool.


Forty-one articles were included (31 DLBCL, 10 HL). Significant predictive ability was reported in 5/20 DLBCL studies assessing SUVmax (PFS: HR 0.13–7.35, OS: HR 0.83–11.23), 17/19 assessing metabolic tumour volume (MTV) (PFS: HR 2.09–11.20, OS: HR 2.40–10.32) and 10/13 assessing total lesion glycolysis (TLG) (PFS: HR 1.078–11.21, OS: HR 2.40–4.82). Significant predictive ability was reported in 1/4 HL studies assessing SUVmax (HR not reported), 6/8 assessing MTV (PFS: HR 1.2–10.71, OS: HR 1.00–13.20) and 2/3 assessing TLG (HR not reported). There are 7/41 studies assessing the use of radiomics (4 DLBCL, 2 HL); 5/41 studies had internal validation and 2/41 included external validation. All studies had overall moderate or high risk of bias.


Most studies are retrospective, underpowered, heterogenous in their methodology and lack external validation of described models. Further work in protocol harmonisation, automated segmentation techniques and optimum performance cut-off is required to develop robust methodologies amenable for clinical utility.

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär


Für Ihren Erfolg in Klinik und Praxis - Die beste Hilfe in Ihrem Arbeitsalltag als Mediziner

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf

e.Med Radiologie


Mit e.Med Radiologie erhalten Sie Zugang zu CME-Fortbildungen des Fachgebietes Radiologie, den Premium-Inhalten der radiologischen Fachzeitschriften, inklusive einer gedruckten Radiologie-Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl.

e.Med Onkologie


Mit e.Med Onkologie erhalten Sie Zugang zu CME-Fortbildungen des Fachgebietes Onkologie, den Premium-Inhalten der onkologischen Fachzeitschriften, inklusive einer gedruckten onkologischen Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl. 

Über diesen Artikel