• PET-CT is the modern standard for staging Hodgkin lymphoma and can replace contrast enhanced CT in the vast majority of cases.

  • Agreement between expert and local readers is sufficient for the Deauville criteria to assess response in clinical trials and the community.

International guidelines recommend that positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) should replace CT in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). The aims of this study were to compare PET-CT with CT for staging and measure agreement between expert and local readers, using a 5-point scale (Deauville criteria), to adapt treatment in a clinical trial: Response-Adapted Therapy in Advanced Hodgkin Lymphoma (RATHL). Patients were staged using clinical assessment, CT, and bone marrow biopsy (RATHL stage). PET-CT was performed at baseline (PET0) and after 2 chemotherapy cycles (PET2) in a response-adapted design. PET-CT was reported centrally by experts at 5 national core laboratories. Local readers optionally scored PET2 scans. The RATHL and PET-CT stages were compared. Agreement among experts and between expert and local readers was measured. RATHL and PET0 stage were concordant in 938 (80%) patients. PET-CT upstaged 159 (14%) and downstaged 74 (6%) patients. Upstaging by extranodal disease in bone marrow (92), lung (11), or multiple sites (12) on PET-CT accounted for most discrepancies. Follow-up of discrepant findings confirmed the PET characterization of lesions in the vast majority. Five patients were upstaged by marrow biopsy and 7 by contrast-enhanced CT in the bowel and/or liver or spleen. PET2 agreement among experts (140 scans) with a κ (95% confidence interval) of 0.84 (0.76-0.91) was very good and between experts and local readers (300 scans) at 0.77 (0.68-0.86) was good. These results confirm PET-CT as the modern standard for staging HL and that response assessment using Deauville criteria is robust, enabling translation of RATHL results into clinical practice.

Positron emission tomography (PET) and PET-computed tomography (CT), using 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-d-glucose (FDG), has been extensively used for imaging patients with Hodgkin lymphoma (HL).1-5  International guidelines recently recommended that PET-CT be used for routine staging of FDG-avid lymphomas and for response assessment using a 5-point scale (5-PS), the so-called Deauville criteria.6,7 

PET-CT was preferred for staging due to improved accuracy compared with CT and as a baseline for subsequent response assessment.6  Contrast enhanced CT (ceCT) may be required if accurate nodal measurement is needed (eg, in clinical trials, assessment of bowel involvement, compression/thrombosis of central vessels, and for radiation planning).7  Direct comparison between ceCT and PET-CT when the CT component is performed as a low-dose unenhanced scan suggests that higher dose ceCT has no impact on lymphoma management.8,9  Further, changes in FDG uptake are more relevant than changes in nodal size for response assessment.6  Despite this, both ceCT and PET-CT are frequently performed at diagnosis, with added cost and radiation exposure.

PET is reported to alter stage compared with CT,3,10  but most publications are retrospective and used stand-alone PET.11-16  Previous publications compared imaging techniques but do not report the impact of imaging on the more relevant final clinical stage, inclusive of bone marrow biopsy, and some publications included patients with HL and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL).17-21 

Response assessment with the 5-PS has been reported by a number of investigators to have good interobserver agreement in a training set of 50 patients,22  in a study of 260 advanced HL patients with international expert readers,23  and in pediatric HL.24  The 5-PS also improves the positive predictive value of PET compared with previous International Harmonization Criteria.25  These studies, however, were all retrospective, and the 5-PS was not used to direct therapy.

The aims of this study were to determine, in a large cohort of patients with advanced HL, within a prospectively acquired clinical trial, the difference in staging when unenhanced PET-CT is used in place of standard assessment with clinical examination, ceCT, and bone marrow biopsy and the agreement among experts and between experts and local readers using the 5-PS to adapt treatment in real time.

Patients were registered in the Response Adapted Therapy in Advanced Hodgkin Lymphoma (RATHL) study and gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The study had Human Ethics Committee approval in all participating countries.

Staging

Patients underwent clinical assessment and ceCT of the neck, thorax, abdomen, pelvis, and bone marrow biopsy to assess stage. RATHL included patients with stages IIB to IV and stage IIA with adverse features. Patients also underwent a PET-CT scan with low-dose unenhanced CT at staging (PET0). ceCT and PET-CT scans were performed within 28 days of enrollment. PET-CT scans were acquired around 60 minutes after the intravenous injection of 350 to 550 MBq FDG. The ceCT scans at diagnosis were reported by the radiologist at the recruiting center, and clinical assessment, CT findings, and bone marrow biopsy were used to assign the final RATHL stage by the treating clinician on the case report form. In individual cases, ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging was also used for staging. Inclusion in the study was based on the RATHL stage and not PET-CT. The PET-CT stage was assigned by central readers at core labs in the United Kingdom, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, and Australia without knowledge of RATHL stage, marrow biopsy, or patient outcome. Causes for discrepancy in stage between PET-CT and other modalities were assessed with reference to the imaging reports, bone marrow biopsy results, and by observing the changes that occurred with treatment on PET scans performed during chemotherapy. ceCT scans were not re-reviewed centrally. PET-CT scans were performed at multiple international centers using standardized methods for acquisition and quality control.26 

Response assessment

PET-CT was repeated after 2 cycles of doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, dacarbazine (ABVD) chemotherapy (PET2). All scans were PET-CT, and stand-alone PET scans were not permitted in the trial. PET2 scans were performed 9 to 13 days after day 15 of cycle 2.

PET2 was scored using the 5-PS,6  according to the level of the most intense residual FDG uptake at involved sites on PET0 as follows: (1) no uptake; (2) uptake ≤mediastinum; (3) uptake >mediastinum but ≤liver; (4) uptake moderately higher than liver; and (5) uptake markedly higher than liver and/or new lesions. The term “X” was applied to new areas of uptake unlikely to be related to lymphoma.

Scores 1, 2, and 3 were regarded as negative, and scores 4 and 5 were regarded as positive. Score 5 was regarded as uptake ≥3 times the maximum standardized uptake value in normal liver.

Patients with negative PET2 were randomized to continue with 4 cycles of ABVD or have de-escalation of treatment with 4 cycles of AVD (doxorubicin, vinblastine, dacarbazine). Patients with positive PET2 had escalated treatment with bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (BEACOPP)-escalated or BEACOPP-14, according to the treating center preference. A third PET-CT (PET3) was performed 9 to 13 days after day 8 of cycle 3 of BEACOPP-escalated or 2 to 6 days after day 8 of cycle 4 of BEACOPP-14 to ensure effectiveness of therapy. It was left to the treating physician’s discretion whether patients were offered salvage therapy if PET3 remained positive. An end-of-treatment PET scan was not mandated. Patients with a negative PET2 or PET3 scan were not recommended to receive consolidation radiotherapy as routine, although local investigators had the discretion to use radiotherapy if they felt it necessary.

PET2 was scored at the core laboratories within 72 hours, and this score was used to direct treatment. To assess the level of agreement, readers from all core laboratories read the same paired PET0 and PET2 scans from (1) a training set of 50 patients,22  (2) the first 10 patients scored at each core laboratory, and (3) a further 10 patients scored at each core laboratory during the trial. Readers at local PET centers were given the option to score scans. Levels of agreement were measured between central (core laboratory) readers and between local and central readers, using nonweighted κ statistics27  (Stata version 12.1; Stata Corp). Using this threshold, uptake in lesions higher than normal liver uptake resulted in treatment escalation. Agreement was also measured regarding scores 1 and 2 as negative and scores 3 to 5 as positive, as this threshold has been used as a benchmark for de-escalation in trials involving patients with HL.1,28,29 

κ values between 0.81 and 1.00 indicate very good agreement, 0.61 and 0.80 indicate good agreement, 0.41 and 0.60 indicate moderate agreement, and 0.21 to 0.4 indicate fair agreement.30 

Staging

A total of 1214 patients were registered from 2008 to 2012; 1171 baseline PET-CT scans were available for staging assessment, which was performed retrospectively (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Consort flow diagram demonstrating progress of patients through the trial from baseline to PET3.

Figure 1

Consort flow diagram demonstrating progress of patients through the trial from baseline to PET3.

There was agreement between the RATHL stage and the PET-CT stage in 938 (80%) patients. A total of 159 patients (14%) were upstaged and 74 patients (6%) were downstaged by PET-CT (Table 1). The main reason for upstaging was detection of extranodal disease (Table 2), most commonly in bone marrow (Figure 2). Upstaging due to nodal involvement also occurred, mostly below the diaphragm (Table 2). Reasons for downstaging included enlarged nodes and/or spleen, which were not FDG-avid and extranodal sites with abnormal morphology but no FDG uptake (Table 2).

Table 1

Level of agreement between RATHL stage (assigned by clinical assessment, ceCT, and bone marrow biopsy) and the baseline PET-CT

PET-CTRATHL stage
1234
406 37 19 
38 240 15 
47 74 292 
PET-CTRATHL stage
1234
406 37 19 
38 240 15 
47 74 292 
Table 2

Reasons for upstaging and downstaging according to PET-CT compared with the RATHL stage

Upstaging by PET-CT due toN (% of upstaged patients)
Extranodal disease on PET-CT in the following sites 118 (74.2) 
 Bone marrow 92 
 Lung 11 
 Liver 
 Pleura 
 Multiple organs 12 
Nodal disease 35 (22.0) 
 Normal sized nodes that were FDG avid below the diaphragm 20 
 Normal sized nodes that were FDG avid above the diaphragm 
 Splenic FDG avid foci 
 Both of the above 
Difference in opinion 6 (3.8) 
 Imaging findings interpreted differently by the local radiologist and the core laboratory PET CT reader or the treating clinician 
Upstaging by PET-CT due toN (% of upstaged patients)
Extranodal disease on PET-CT in the following sites 118 (74.2) 
 Bone marrow 92 
 Lung 11 
 Liver 
 Pleura 
 Multiple organs 12 
Nodal disease 35 (22.0) 
 Normal sized nodes that were FDG avid below the diaphragm 20 
 Normal sized nodes that were FDG avid above the diaphragm 
 Splenic FDG avid foci 
 Both of the above 
Difference in opinion 6 (3.8) 
 Imaging findings interpreted differently by the local radiologist and the core laboratory PET CT reader or the treating clinician 
Downstaging by PET-CT due toN (% of downstaged patients)
Extranodal disease 25 (33.8) 
 Lung 11 
 Bone marrow 
 Pleura 
 Bone 
 Adrenal gland 
 Liver 
 Small bowel 
 Multiple organs 
Nodal disease 34 (45.9) 
 Enlarged nodes that were not FDG avid below the diaphragm 21 
 Enlarged nodes that were not FDG avid above the diaphragm 
 Splenomegaly on CT, normal FDG uptake 
 Splenic lesion/s on ceCT not FDG avid 
 Splenomegaly on CT & enlarged nodes not FDG avid 
Difference in opinion 15 (20.3) 
 Imaging findings interpreted differently by the local radiologist and the core laboratory PET CT reader or the local radiologist and the treating clinician 15 
Downstaging by PET-CT due toN (% of downstaged patients)
Extranodal disease 25 (33.8) 
 Lung 11 
 Bone marrow 
 Pleura 
 Bone 
 Adrenal gland 
 Liver 
 Small bowel 
 Multiple organs 
Nodal disease 34 (45.9) 
 Enlarged nodes that were not FDG avid below the diaphragm 21 
 Enlarged nodes that were not FDG avid above the diaphragm 
 Splenomegaly on CT, normal FDG uptake 
 Splenic lesion/s on ceCT not FDG avid 
 Splenomegaly on CT & enlarged nodes not FDG avid 
Difference in opinion 15 (20.3) 
 Imaging findings interpreted differently by the local radiologist and the core laboratory PET CT reader or the local radiologist and the treating clinician 15 
Figure 2

Example of upstaging by PET-CT. (A) CT and (B) PET coronal images show a case upstaged by PET-CT. Nodal and splenic involvement was reported on CT and interpreted as stage 3. The PET scan showed multifocal uptake in bone marrow upstaging to stage 4.

Figure 2

Example of upstaging by PET-CT. (A) CT and (B) PET coronal images show a case upstaged by PET-CT. Nodal and splenic involvement was reported on CT and interpreted as stage 3. The PET scan showed multifocal uptake in bone marrow upstaging to stage 4.

The PET2 scans of patients with discrepant staging findings were compared with the PET0 scan (supplemental Table 1, available on the Blood Web site). At PET2, FDG uptake at sites that resulted in upstaging decreased in parallel with other sites of disease during treatment in all cases (supplemental Table 1). Twenty patients had extranodal lesions on CT that were not FDG-avid. Five of these 20 patients had lesions that did not change on treatment (Figure 3) and were considered unlikely to represent lymphoma (1 adrenal adenoma, 3 lung nodule/s, 1 bone lesion). One patient had a 37-mm cavitating lung nodule on CT, which enlarged from 5-mm 7 days prior on PET-CT and was probably inflammatory. Six patients had indeterminate lung nodules, and 1 patient had lobar consolidation that all resolved; 3 patients had pleural effusions that resolved; in all these cases, the changes may have been reactive, inflammatory, or related to lymphoma. There were 4 patients, small bowel (1), liver lesions (2), and 1 patient with bowel and liver lesions, where ceCT was considered more likely to indicate the correct stage. Three patients had splenic lesions on ceCT not seen on PET. Bone marrow involvement was missed on PET-CT but identified on biopsy in 5 patients.

Figure 3

Example of downstaging by PET-CT. (Left) CT and (right) PET axial images show a case downstaged by PET-CT. (A) There was nodal disease in the mediastinum and a 22-mm lung nodule in the left lung (arrow), reported on CT as stage 4. The PET scan showed high uptake in lymph nodes but no FDG uptake in the lung nodule, suggesting the nodule was unlikely to be due to lymphoma interpreted as stage 2. (B) After treatment, there was resolution of uptake in lymph nodes but the lung nodule (arrow) was unchanged.

Figure 3

Example of downstaging by PET-CT. (Left) CT and (right) PET axial images show a case downstaged by PET-CT. (A) There was nodal disease in the mediastinum and a 22-mm lung nodule in the left lung (arrow), reported on CT as stage 4. The PET scan showed high uptake in lymph nodes but no FDG uptake in the lung nodule, suggesting the nodule was unlikely to be due to lymphoma interpreted as stage 2. (B) After treatment, there was resolution of uptake in lymph nodes but the lung nodule (arrow) was unchanged.

There were 21 cases where review of the reports suggested that the same imaging findings had been differently interpreted by the local radiologist and the core laboratory PET CT reader or the local radiologist and the treating clinician (Table 2).

Reporting of early response assessment

A total of 1123 PET2 scans were assessable in the trial (Figure 1); 223 PET2 scans were performed in the PET center of one of the core laboratories (Figure 1). Local readers scored 300 of the remaining 900 scans (33%). One hundred forty PET2 scans were scored by all readers at the 5 core laboratories.

When the liver threshold was used, there was agreement between core laboratories that a scan was negative (score 1-3) or positive (score 4 or 5) in 122 of 140 scans: κ (95% confidence interval [CI]), 0.84 (0.76-0.91), indicating very good agreement. There was agreement between central and local readers in 276 of 300 scans; κ (95% CI): 0.77 (0.68-0.86; Table 3), indicating good agreement.

Table 3

Agreement between central and local readers at PET2 using liver threshold

LocalCentral
PositiveNegative
Positive 54 15 
Negative 222 
LocalCentral
PositiveNegative
Positive 54 15 
Negative 222 

When the mediastinal threshold was used, there was agreement between core laboratories that a scan was negative (score 1 or 2) or positive (scores 3-5) in 81 of 140 scans: κ (95% CI), 0.58 (0.50-0.66), indicating moderate agreement. There was agreement between central and local readers in 249 of 305 scans: κ (95% CI), 0.64 (0.55-0.73; Table 4), indicating good agreement.

Table 4

Agreement between central and local readers at PET2 using mediastinal threshold

LocalCentral
PositiveNegative
Positive 85 12 
Negative 39 164 
LocalCentral
PositiveNegative
Positive 85 12 
Negative 39 164 

Identical scores ranging from 1 to 5 were given in 169 of 300 PET2 scans by central and local readers (Table 5). When assigning scans as positive or negative, 15 PET2 scans scored by local readers as positive were deemed negative by central review, whereas 9 PET2 scans scored by local readers as negative were deemed positive by central review using the liver threshold that determined treatment.

Table 5

Agreement between central and local readers at PET2 using scores 1 to 5

Local scoreCentral score
12345
55 59 15 
47 20 
19 
34 
14 
Local scoreCentral score
12345
55 59 15 
47 20 
19 
34 
14 

One hundred sixty one PET3 scans were performed; 26 were performed at the PET center of one of the core laboratories (Figure 1). Local readers scored 47 of the remaining PET3 scans (36%). Using the liver threshold, there was agreement among central and local readers that a scan was negative or positive in 45 of 47 scans: κ (95% CI), 0.91 (0.78-1.00), indicating very good agreement. For the mediastinal threshold, there was agreement in 39 of 47 scans: κ (95% CI), 0.61 (0.45-0.87), indicating good agreement.

Identical scores ranging from 1 to 5 were given in 24 of 47 PET3 scans by central and local readers using the liver threshold.

Our study is the first to compare PET-CT staging with the established standard of clinical assessment, contrast-enhanced CT, and bone marrow biopsy stage in a large cohort of patients with advanced HL in an international trial. PET-CT altered staging in 20% of patients compared with the standard approach, which is at variance with earlier reports that suggested stage change occurred more often in patients with early stage rather than advanced disease.10,20  Upstaging occurred more frequently than downstaging, with extranodal disease accounting for 74% of the upstaged scans, mostly due to an increased sensitivity of PET for detecting bone marrow involvement.

Baseline and response scans were compared, and the findings were correlated with other imaging, where available, to determine the etiology of lesions that accounted for the discrepancy in stage. This supported the notion that PET-CT stage is more accurate than CT in the majority of cases. There were only 4 patients with organ involvement and 3 with probable splenic involvement identified on ceCT that were missed on PET-CT. Bone marrow biopsy identified involvement in 5 cases (0.4%), where there was a normal marrow appearance on PET-CT confirming that routine bone marrow biopsy is no longer required.7,31 

We cannot determine whether staging by PET-CT impacted management because patients were registered in the trial based on having at least stage IIA disease with adverse risk factors on other imaging and marrow biopsy. Upstaging by PET-CT would have been unlikely to impact management as patients had already been assessed as requiring full-course chemotherapy. Similarly, downstaging from stage 4 to stage 3 would not have impacted treatment. PET-CT, however, downstaged 56 patients to stage 2 and 1 patient to stage 1 (5% of the study population), and this could potentially influence treatment choices.

Our results are in keeping with earlier reports11,13-16  that PET stages HL patients differently to ceCT in ∼15% to 30% of cases. Early reports had fewer patients, were retrospective, and were published prior to the widespread introduction of PET-CT.11-16  More recently, Hutchings et al3  compared PET with CT staging prospectively in 99 patients with HL (61 with PET-CT), and Rigacci et al10  in 186 patients (56 with PET-CT). Upstaging, especially by identification of extranodal sites, occurred more frequently than downstaging, similar to our findings.3  Lesions were also overlooked on CT and more easily identified on PET.3,10,20 

The truth as to whether lesions identified only on PET represent lymphoma is difficult to determine as biopsy of discrepant lesions is rarely performed. Correlative imaging, treatment response, follow-up, biopsy, or a combination usually serves as a reference standard.3,10-14  Young et al,32  in 49 HL patients, verified stage by laparotomy in 11 patients and biopsy of discordant lesions in the remainder. PET stage was correct in 26 upstaged patients, and a single patient downstaged compared with CT. Taken together, these studies demonstrated improved sensitivity and similar specificity using PET compared with CT.

Changes in management were reported in 12 of 186 patients by Rigacci et al.10  Ten patients were upstaged from limited to advanced disease, and 2 patients had an increase in the radiotherapy field using PET. Hutchings et al3  reported that 7 patients upstaged by PET to advanced disease were treated for limited disease, but only 1 patient developed progressive lymphoma. Eighteen patients had disease progression overall, suggesting that understaging by CT probably did not adversely impact on outcome. The same group later reported, however, that the routine use of PET-CT in their clinical practice resulted in stage migration, with a higher risk of progression associated with focal FDG-avid skeletal lesions.33  Bone marrow involvement was the most common reason for discrepancy in stage between PET and CT in our series. Munker et al13  also reported significantly more treatment failures among patients staged as I or II on CT, yet III or IV on PET compared with patients who were stage I or II by both CT and PET. More accurate delineation of disease is thus likely to be of benefit for patient management and for radiation planning10,15 .

International guidelines have recommended that PET-CT should be used for staging of FDG-avid lymphomas,7  because it is more accurate than CT and because a staging scan improves the accuracy of response assessment.6  The role of ceCT in staging is still debated, although the international guidelines concluded that ceCT had limited application7  as it rarely altered staging or management.8,9  Our study confirms this conclusion; organ involvement was detected on ceCT but not PET-CT in 4 patients and splenic lesions in 3 patients, leading to stage change. On the other hand, PET-CT detected extranodal disease in 118 patients and splenic FDG-avid foci in 7 patients and stage was changed. Further, the effective dose associated with ceCT is ∼16 mSv, which is similar to the combined dose from PET with lower-dose unenhanced CT. Avoiding ceCT for staging would thus reduce a patient’s radiation dose by 50%. Although ceCT may be required for planning radiotherapy, in our study, <10% of patients required this.7 

PET-CT is recommended for response assessment in FDG-avid lymphomas using the 5-PS.34  The 5-PS has good interobserver agreement22,24,25,35-37  and is predictive of patient outcomes,29,35,38-40  especially in advanced HL.37,41  An advantage of the 5-PS is that the threshold used to define complete metabolic response can be altered according to the clinical context or research question.34  In the RATHL design where patients with a positive scan received escalation from ABVD to BEACOPP, investigators preferred to use the liver threshold to avoid the risk of overtreating patients. In some trials designed to explore de-escalation strategies, a lower mediastinal threshold has been used to avoid the risk of undertreating patients.1,28,29  Yahalom42  expressed concern that the good agreement reported among expert readers may not be reproducible in the community setting, in particular, if treatment was adapted on the basis of the result. Our study demonstrated similar levels of agreement among experts and local readers, with good or very good agreement for the liver but lower moderate to good agreement for the mediastinal threshold. In RATHL, the outcome for patients with a negative scan was not influenced by the PET2 score,43  and our observations suggest that the liver is likely to be a more reproducible threshold, although readers may possibly have paid closer attention to the decision to assign a score of 4 rather than 3, knowing this would result in treatment escalation. The better agreement using the liver43  may be explained by the higher uptake in liver than mediastinum, so the contrast between lesions with low-grade uptake and the reference region is easier to appreciate.22,23  In addition, there is more uniform uptake in the liver than the mediastinum where uptake can be heterogeneous with focal uptake in the vessel wall. Standardization of patient preparation and scanning are important to ensure homogenous uptake in the liver.44  The agreement for scoring at PET3 was good, which has not previously been reported, although the numbers assessed were small. This is reassuring as BEACOPP chemotherapy can be associated with diffuse bone marrow uptake, which might have made interpretation more challenging.

The main limitations to our study were that it was not possible for ceCT scans to be re-reviewed alongside PET-CT scans, and we could not measure the impact of PET-CT on management. Bias may have occurred in the scoring of response scans by local readers as it was optional to score scans, although readers were evenly split between academic and nonacademic institutions.

In conclusion, staging of HL patients in this large prospective study confirms that an important proportion will be staged differently using PET-CT compared with clinical assessment, CT, and bone marrow biopsy. When discordance occurs in the imaging stage, PET-CT is usually more accurate than CT, which may impact on management.3,10,14,32  These findings support the move to a modern standard using PET-CT for staging and suggests that, in the vast majority of cases, ceCT is not required.6,7 

Good agreement between local and expert readers indicates that the 5-PS is robust for assessing response when standardized PET protocols are used, and it works effectively in the community setting and in clinical trials. The final results of the RATHL trial will determine whether response adaptation using the 5-PS is successful at improving outcomes in advanced HL. In the meantime, our results strengthen the application of the 5-PS as the optimal method for response assessment in HL.

Presented in part at the 12th International Conference on Malignant Lymphomas, Lugano, Switzerland, June 19-22, 2013.

The online version of this article contains a data supplement.

The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by page charge payment. Therefore, and solely to indicate this fact, this article is hereby marked “advertisement” in accordance with 18 USC section 1734.

The authors thank Cancer Research UK (CRUK/07/033), the Associazione Angela Serra for Cancer Research (Modena, Italy), Larvik Kreftforening, Norway, and Cancer Australia’s Priority Driven Collaborative Cancer Research Scheme, who provided funding for the RATHL trial. The authors also thank Cancer Research UK, the National Institute for Health Research in England, and the Departments of Health for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (C19631/A16091; MRPTADR) for funding the UK National Cancer Research Institute PET Core Laboratory. The enthusiastic support of PET reviewers, PET centers, trial investigators, patients, and their families is also gratefully acknowledged.

Contribution: S.F.B. and P.W.J. designed the research; all authors performed research; S.F.B., A.A.K., T.H.R., L.C.P., M.F., S.L., J.R., J.T., A. Fossa, L.B., D.M., F.D., D.A.S., P.S., and P.W.J. collected data; S.F.B., A.A.K., A. Franceschetto, M.J.F., H.A., E.B., and K.H. analyzed and interpreted data; A.A.K. performed statistical analysis; and all authors wrote and approved the manuscript.

Conflict-of-interest disclosure: P.J. has received paid consultancies for Takeda and Bristol-Myers Squibb. All other authors declare no competing financial interests.

Correspondence: Sally F. Barrington, PET Imaging Centre, St. Thomas’ Hospital, Westminster Bridge Rd, London SE1 7EH, United Kingdom; e-mail: sally.barrington@kcl.ac.uk.

1
Engert
 
A
Haverkamp
 
H
Kobe
 
C
, et al. 
German Hodgkin Study Group; Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research; Arbeitsgemeinschaft Medikamentöse Tumortherapie
Reduced-intensity chemotherapy and PET-guided radiotherapy in patients with advanced stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma (HD15 trial): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 non-inferiority trial.
Lancet
2012
, vol. 
379
 
9828
(pg. 
1791
-
1799
)
2
Gallamini
 
A
Hutchings
 
M
Rigacci
 
L
, et al. 
Early interim 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography is prognostically superior to international prognostic score in advanced-stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a report from a joint Italian-Danish study.
J Clin Oncol
2007
, vol. 
25
 
24
(pg. 
3746
-
3752
)
3
Hutchings
 
M
Loft
 
A
Hansen
 
M
, et al. 
Position emission tomography with or without computed tomography in the primary staging of Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Haematologica
2006
, vol. 
91
 
4
(pg. 
482
-
489
)
4
Hutchings
 
M
Loft
 
A
Hansen
 
M
, et al. 
FDG-PET after two cycles of chemotherapy predicts treatment failure and progression-free survival in Hodgkin lymphoma.
Blood
2006
, vol. 
107
 
1
(pg. 
52
-
59
)
5
Hutchings
 
M
Mikhaeel
 
NG
Fields
 
PA
Nunan
 
T
Timothy
 
AR
Prognostic value of interim FDG-PET after two or three cycles of chemotherapy in Hodgkin lymphoma.
Ann Oncol
2005
, vol. 
16
 
7
(pg. 
1160
-
1168
)
6
Barrington
 
SF
Mikhaeel
 
NG
Kostakoglu
 
L
, et al. 
Role of imaging in the staging and response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the International Conference on Malignant Lymphomas Imaging Working Group.
J Clin Oncol
2014
, vol. 
32
 
27
(pg. 
3048
-
3058
)
7
Cheson
 
BD
Fisher
 
RI
Barrington
 
SF
, et al. 
Alliance, Australasian Leukaemia and Lymphoma Group; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; European Mantle Cell Lymphoma Consortium; Italian Lymphoma Foundation; European Organisation for Research; Treatment of Cancer/Dutch Hemato-Oncology Group; Grupo Español de Médula Ósea; German High-Grade Lymphoma Study Group; German Hodgkin’s Study Group; Japanese Lymphorra Study Group; Lymphoma Study Association; NCIC Clinical Trials Group; Nordic Lymphoma Study Group; Southwest Oncology Group; United Kingdom National Cancer Research Institute
Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: the Lugano classification.
J Clin Oncol
2014
, vol. 
32
 
27
(pg. 
3059
-
3068
)
8
Chalaye
 
J
Luciani
 
A
Enache
 
C
, et al. 
Clinical impact of contrast-enhanced computed tomography combined with low-dose (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography on routine lymphoma patient management.
Leuk Lymphoma
2014
, vol. 
55
 
12
(pg. 
2887
-
2892
)
9
Pinilla
 
I
Gómez-León
 
N
Del Campo-Del Val
 
L
, et al. 
Diagnostic value of CT, PET and combined PET/CT performed with low-dose unenhanced CT and full-dose enhanced CT in the initial staging of lymphoma.
Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging
2011
, vol. 
55
 
5
(pg. 
567
-
575
)
10
Rigacci
 
L
Vitolo
 
U
Nassi
 
L
, et al. 
Intergruppo Italiano Linfomi
Positron emission tomography in the staging of patients with Hodgkin’s lymphoma. A prospective multicentric study by the Intergruppo Italiano Linfomi.
Ann Hematol
2007
, vol. 
86
 
12
(pg. 
897
-
903
)
11
Bangerter
 
M
Moog
 
F
Buchmann
 
I
, et al. 
Whole-body 2-[18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) for accurate staging of Hodgkin’s disease.
Ann Oncol
1998
, vol. 
9
 
10
(pg. 
1117
-
1122
)
12
Jerusalem
 
G
Beguin
 
Y
Fassotte
 
MF
, et al. 
Whole-body positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose compared to standard procedures for staging patients with Hodgkin’s disease.
Haematologica
2001
, vol. 
86
 
3
(pg. 
266
-
273
)
13
Munker
 
R
Glass
 
J
Griffeth
 
LK
, et al. 
Contribution of PET imaging to the initial staging and prognosis of patients with Hodgkin’s disease.
Ann Oncol
2004
, vol. 
15
 
11
(pg. 
1699
-
1704
)
14
Naumann
 
R
Beuthien-Baumann
 
B
Reiss
 
A
, et al. 
Substantial impact of FDG PET imaging on the therapy decision in patients with early-stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Br J Cancer
2004
, vol. 
90
 
3
(pg. 
620
-
625
)
15
Partridge
 
S
Timothy
 
A
O’Doherty
 
MJ
Hain
 
SF
Rankin
 
S
Mikhaeel
 
G
2-Fluorine-18-fluoro-2-deoxy-D glucose positron emission tomography in the pretreatment staging of Hodgkin’s disease: influence on patient management in a single institution.
Ann Oncol
2000
, vol. 
11
 
10
(pg. 
1273
-
1279
)
16
Weihrauch
 
MR
Re
 
D
Bischoff
 
S
, et al. 
Whole-body positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose for initial staging of patients with Hodgkin’s disease.
Ann Hematol
2002
, vol. 
81
 
1
(pg. 
20
-
25
)
17
Buchmann
 
I
Reinhardt
 
M
Elsner
 
K
, et al. 
2-(fluorine-18)fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in the detection and staging of malignant lymphoma. A bicenter trial.
Cancer
2001
, vol. 
91
 
5
(pg. 
889
-
899
)
18
Elstrom
 
RL
Leonard
 
JP
Coleman
 
M
Brown
 
RK
Combined PET and low-dose, noncontrast CT scanning obviates the need for additional diagnostic contrast-enhanced CT scans in patients undergoing staging or restaging for lymphoma.
Ann Oncol
2008-1773
, vol. 
19
 
10
(pg. 
1770
-
1773
)
19
Pelosi
 
E
Pregno
 
P
Penna
 
D
, et al. 
Role of whole-body [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) and conventional techniques in the staging of patients with Hodgkin and aggressive non Hodgkin lymphoma.
Radiol Med (Torino)
2008
, vol. 
113
 
4
(pg. 
578
-
590
)
20
Raanani
 
P
Shasha
 
Y
Perry
 
C
, et al. 
Is CT scan still necessary for staging in Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma patients in the PET/CT era?
Ann Oncol
2006
, vol. 
17
 
1
(pg. 
117
-
122
)
21
Wirth
 
A
Seymour
 
JF
Hicks
 
RJ
, et al. 
Fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography, gallium-67 scintigraphy, and conventional staging for Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Am J Med
2002
, vol. 
112
 
4
(pg. 
262
-
268
)
22
Barrington
 
SF
Qian
 
W
Somer
 
EJ
, et al. 
Concordance between four European centres of PET reporting criteria designed for use in multicentre trials in Hodgkin lymphoma.
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging
2010
, vol. 
37
 
10
(pg. 
1824
-
1833
)
23
Biggi
 
A
Gallamini
 
A
Chauvie
 
S
, et al. 
International validation study for interim PET in ABVD-treated, advanced-stage hodgkin lymphoma: interpretation criteria and concordance rate among reviewers.
J Nucl Med
2013
, vol. 
54
 
5
(pg. 
683
-
690
)
24
Furth
 
C
Amthauer
 
H
Hautzel
 
H
, et al. 
Evaluation of interim PET response criteria in paediatric Hodgkin’s lymphoma--results for dedicated assessment criteria in a blinded dual-centre read.
Ann Oncol
2011
, vol. 
22
 
5
(pg. 
1198
-
1203
)
25
Le Roux
 
PY
Gastinne
 
T
Le Gouill
 
S
, et al. 
Prognostic value of interim FDG PET/CT in Hodgkin’s lymphoma patients treated with interim response-adapted strategy: comparison of International Harmonization Project (IHP), Gallamini and London criteria.
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging
2011
, vol. 
38
 
6
(pg. 
1064
-
1071
)
26
Barrington
 
SF
Mackewn
 
JE
Schleyer
 
P
, et al. 
Establishment of a UK-wide network to facilitate the acquisition of quality assured FDG-PET data for clinical trials in lymphoma.
Ann Oncol
2011
, vol. 
22
 
3
(pg. 
739
-
745
)
27
Cohen
 
J
A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales.
Educ Psychol Meas
1960
, vol. 
20
 
1
(pg. 
37
-
46
)
28
Raemaekers
 
JM
André
 
MP
Federico
 
M
, et al. 
Omitting radiotherapy in early positron emission tomography-negative stage I/II Hodgkin lymphoma is associated with an increased risk of early relapse: Clinical results of the preplanned interim analysis of the randomized EORTC/LYSA/FIL H10 trial.
J Clin Oncol
2014
, vol. 
32
 
12
(pg. 
1188
-
1194
)
29
Radford
 
J
Illidge
 
T
Counsell
 
N
, et al. 
Results of a trial of PET-directed therapy for early-stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
N Engl J Med
2015
, vol. 
372
 
17
(pg. 
1598
-
1607
)
30
Altman
 
D
Some Common Problems in Medical Research.
Practical Statistics for Medical Research
1999
London, United Kingdom
Chapman & Hall/CRC
(pg. 
396
-
439
)
31
El-Galaly
 
TC
d’Amore
 
F
Mylam
 
KJ
, et al. 
Routine bone marrow biopsy has little or no therapeutic consequence for positron emission tomography/computed tomography-staged treatment-naive patients with Hodgkin lymphoma.
J Clin Oncol
2012
, vol. 
30
 
36
(pg. 
4508
-
4514
)
32
Young
 
CS
Young
 
BL
Smith
 
SM
Staging Hodgkin’s Disease with 18-FDG PET. Comparison with CT and Surgery.
Clin Positron Imaging
1998
, vol. 
1
 
3
(pg. 
161
-
164
)
33
El-Galaly
 
TC
Hutchings
 
M
Mylam
 
KJ
, et al. 
Impact of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography staging in newly diagnosed classical Hodgkin lymphoma: fewer cases with stage I disease and more with skeletal involvement.
Leuk Lymphoma
2014
, vol. 
55
 
10
(pg. 
2349
-
2355
)
34
Barrington
 
SF
Mikhaeel
 
NG
When should FDG-PET be used in the modern management of lymphoma?
Br J Haematol
2014
, vol. 
164
 
3
(pg. 
315
-
328
)
35
Dupuis
 
J
Berriolo-Riedinger
 
A
Julian
 
A
, et al. 
Impact of [(18)F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography response evaluation in patients with high-tumor burden follicular lymphoma treated with immunochemotherapy: a prospective study from the Groupe d’Etudes des Lymphomes de l’Adulte and GOELAMS.
J Clin Oncol
2012
, vol. 
30
 
35
(pg. 
4317
-
4322
)
36
Itti
 
E
Meignan
 
M
Berriolo-Riedinger
 
A
, et al. 
An international confirmatory study of the prognostic value of early PET/CT in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: comparison between Deauville criteria and ΔSUVmax.
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging
2013
, vol. 
40
 
9
(pg. 
1312
-
1320
)
37
Oki
 
Y
Chuang
 
H
Chasen
 
B
, et al. 
The prognostic value of interim positron emission tomography scan in patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma.
Br J Haematol
2014
, vol. 
165
 
1
(pg. 
112
-
116
)
38
Nols
 
N
Mounier
 
N
Bouazza
 
S
, et al. 
Quantitative and qualitative analysis of metabolic response at interim positron emission tomography scan combined with International Prognostic Index is highly predictive of outcome in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.
Leuk Lymphoma
2014
, vol. 
55
 
4
(pg. 
773
-
780
)
39
Pregno
 
P
Chiappella
 
A
Bellò
 
M
, et al. 
Interim 18-FDG-PET/CT failed to predict the outcome in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients treated at the diagnosis with rituximab-CHOP.
Blood
2012
, vol. 
119
 
9
(pg. 
2066
-
2073
)
40
Trotman
 
J
Luminari
 
S
Boussetta
 
S
, et al. 
Prognostic value of PET-CT after first-line therapy in patients with follicular lymphoma: a pooled analysis of central scan review in three multicentre studies.
Lancet Haematol
2014
, vol. 
1
 
1
(pg. 
e17
-
e27
)
41
Gallamini
 
A
Barrington
 
SF
Biggi
 
A
, et al. 
The predictive role of interim positron emission tomography for Hodgkin lymphoma treatment outcome is confirmed using the interpretation criteria of the Deauville five-point scale.
Haematologica
2014
, vol. 
99
 
6
(pg. 
1107
-
1113
)
42
Yahalom
 
J
Chemotherapy only in early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma: more relapses but “same” (or possibly worse) survival--reconsidering the misguided trend to omit radiotherapy.
Curr Hematol Malig Rep
2014
, vol. 
9
 
3
(pg. 
212
-
216
)
43
Johnson
 
PW
Federico
 
M
Fossa
 
A
, et al. 
Response-adapted therapy based on interim FDG-PET scans in advanced Hodgkin Lymphoma: First analysis of the safety of de-escalation and efficacy of escalation in the International RATHL study (CRUK/07/033).
Hematol Oncol
2015
, vol. 
33
 
suppl S1
(pg. 
100
-
180
)
44
Boellaard
 
R
Delgado-Bolton
 
R
Oyen
 
WJ
, et al. 
European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)
FDG PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour imaging: version 2.0.
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging
2015
, vol. 
42
 
2
(pg. 
328
-
354
)