Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorHusby, Trine
dc.contributor.authorJohansen, Håkon
dc.contributor.authorBogsrud, Trond
dc.contributor.authorHustad, Kari Vekseth
dc.contributor.authorEvensen, Birte Veslemøy
dc.contributor.authorBoellard, Ronald
dc.contributor.authorGiskeødegård, Guro F.
dc.contributor.authorFagerli, Unn-Merete
dc.contributor.authorEikenes, Live
dc.date.accessioned2023-02-10T10:30:02Z
dc.date.available2023-02-10T10:30:02Z
dc.date.created2022-04-29T12:51:03Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.identifier.citationAnnals of Hematology. 2022, 101 (5), 1077-1088.en_US
dc.identifier.issn0939-5555
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/3049995
dc.description.abstractThe aim of the current study was to investigate the diagnostic performance of FDG PET/MR compared to PET/CT in a patient cohort including Hodgkins lymphoma, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and high-grade B-cell lymphoma at baseline and response assessment. Sixty-one patients were examined with FDG PET/CT directly followed by PET/MR. Images were read by two pairs of nuclear medicine physicians and radiologists. Concordance for lymphoma involvement between PET/MR and the reference standard PET/CT was assessed at baseline and response assessment. Correlation of prognostic biomarkers Deauville score, criteria of response, SUVmax, SUVpeak, and MTV was performed between PET/MR and PET/CT. Baseline FDG PET/MR showed a sensitivity of 92.5% and a specificity 97.9% compared to the reference standard PET/CT (κ 0.91) for nodal sites. For extranodal sites, a sensitivity of 80.4% and a specificity of 99.5% were found (κ 0.84). Concordance in Ann Arbor was found in 57 of 61 patients (κ 0.92). Discrepancies were due to misclassification of region and not lesion detection. In response assessment, a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity 99.9% for all sites combined were found (κ 0.92). There was a perfect agreement on Deauville scores 4 and 5 and criteria of response between the two modalities. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for SUVmax, SUVpeak, and MTV values showed excellent reliability (ICC > 0.9). FDG PET/MR is a reliable alternative to PET/CT in this patient population, both in terms of lesion detection at baseline staging and response assessment, and for quantitative prognostic imaging biomarkers.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherSpringeren_US
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.titleA comparison of FDG PET/MR and PET/CT for staging, response assessment, and prognostic imaging biomarkers in lymphomaen_US
dc.title.alternativeA comparison of FDG PET/MR and PET/CT for staging, response assessment, and prognostic imaging biomarkers in lymphomaen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.source.pagenumber1077-1088en_US
dc.source.volume101en_US
dc.source.journalAnnals of Hematologyen_US
dc.source.issue5en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00277-022-04789-9
dc.identifier.cristin2020124
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal