The value of fourth and subsequent post-treatment 18F-FDG PET/CT scans in the management of patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma

IDO, TDO, and AHR overexpression is associated with poor outcome in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients in the rituximab era

Although Indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase (IDO), tryptophan-2,3-dioxygenase (TDO), and aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AHR) are involved in cancer immune escape, their prognostic impact on diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is unknown.To examine the prognostic impact of IDO, TDO, and AHR on patients with DLBCL.This was a retrospective study on treatment-naïve patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL at the Henan Province People's Hospital between 01/2012 and 06/2015. Patients with inflammatory reactive lymph nodes were included as controls. All cases were reviewed by 2 pathologists. IDO, TDO, and AHR positivity was determined through immunochemistry. Survival was examined using the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable Cox analyses.The positive expression of TDO (50.0% vs 16.7%, P = .005) and AHR (60.0% vs 8.3%, P < .001) were higher in DLBCL than in inflammatory control. The overall survival of IDO, TDO, and AHR positive expression in DLBCL patients was 34.6, 26.7, and 32.2 months, respectively, which is significantly shorter than that of the corresponding negative patients (49.0 months, P = .04; 58.2 months, P < .001; 58.0 months, P < .001; respectively). The multivariable analysis showed that TDO expression and Ann-Arbor stage were independently associated with PFS (TDO: HR = 8.347, 95%CI: 2.992-23.289, P < .001; stage: HR = 2.729, 95%CI: 1.571-4.739, P < .001) and OS (TDO: HR = 9.953, 95%CI: 3.228-30.686, P < .001; stage: HR = 2.681, 95%CI: 1.524-4.719, P = .001) in DLBCL patients.Overexpression of IDO, TDO, and AHR is associated with poor survival of patients with DLBCL and could be involved in the immune escape of cancer cells. Further studies are necessary to determine whether these proteins can be targeted by treatment regimens.

Post-treatment surveillance imaging in lymphoma

Appropriate post-treatment management of patients with lymphoma has been controversial, with imaging frequently performed as post-treatment surveillance. The goal of post-treatment imaging is to identify relapse prior to clinical symptoms, when the burden of disease is lower and the possibility of effective salvage therapy and cure are greater. However, little data exist to support the performance of surveillance imaging after completion of treatment, with the vast majority of studies suggesting there is no clinical benefit to surveillance imaging in asymptomatic patients. Ongoing efforts seek to identify a subset of patients with a higher risk of relapse that might benefit from surveillance imaging, though financial and other costs associated with imaging are non-negligible and must be considered. Here we summarize the current data regarding post-treatment surveillance imaging in lymphoma.

Clinical Indications and Impact on Management: Fourth and Subsequent Posttherapy Follow-up 18F-FDG PET/CT Scans in Oncology Patients

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services coverage includes 3 posttherapy ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT scans per patient and per tumor type. Any additional follow-up ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT scans will be reimbursed at the discretion of a local Medicare administrator, if deemed medically necessary. This study aimed to investigate common clinical indications for performing a fourth or additional follow-up ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT scans that could affect the management of patients. Methods: This was a retrospective institutional review of 433 oncology patients (203 men; mean age, 55 y), including a total of 1,659 fourth or subsequent follow-up PET/CT scans after completion of primary treatment. Twelve indications for performing a fourth or subsequent follow-up PET/CT scan were determined, and the impact of each of the 12 indications on patients' management was evaluated. Results: The primary tumors were breast cancer (92 patients, 426 scans), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (77 patients, 208 scans), Hodgkin disease (41 patients, 182 scans), colorectal cancer (70 patients, 286 scans), melanoma (69 patients, 271 scans), and lung cancer (84 patients, 286 scans). The indications were categorized in 4 groups: PET/CT for diagnosis of tumor recurrence (303/1,659, 18.3%), PET/CT before starting therapy for tumor recurrence (64/1,659, 3.9%), PET/CT to assess therapy response for tumor recurrence (507/1,659, 30.6%), and follow-up PET/CT after completion of treatment for tumor recurrence (785/1,659, 47.3%). Overall, fourth and subsequent follow-up ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT scans resulted in change in management in 31.6% of the scans (356 of 1,128) when the scans were obtained for medical necessities (indications 1-11), and in 5.6% of the scans (30/531) when the scans were obtained without any medical necessity (indication 12). Conclusion: The fourth and subsequent PET/CT scans obtained after completion of primary treatment led to a change in management in 31.6% of the scans when acquired for appropriate clinical reasons. Performing follow-up PET/CT without appropriate medical reason had a low impact on patients' management and should be avoided.