Table 1 Utility of PET in Burkitt lymphoma
Study (year published) | Patient population (cohort size) | Utility |
|---|---|---|
Albano et al. (2018) [16] | Adults (n = 65) | -End of treatment PET/CT results significantly correlate with PFS and OS -Interim PET/CT did not correlate with PFS and OS |
Albano et al. (2019) [17] | Adults (n = 65) | -Total metabolic tumor volume and total lesion glycolysis independent prognostic factors for PFS and OS |
Bailly et al. (2014) [18] | Children (n = 19) | -Significantly higher NPV of PET (93%) compared to conventional imaging (73%) in detecting CR -PFS significantly higher in patients with negative PET than those with positive PET |
Carrillo-Cruz et al. (2015) [19] | Adults and children (n = 32) | −100% NPV in predicting CR −100% PPV of nonresponse with SUV change < 66% after treatment |
Davidson et al. (2018) [20] | Adults (n = 20) | -Increased splenic FDG uptake rarely involved at time of staging -Low rate of spleen involvement may serve as a specific characteristic of BL |
Karantanis et al. (2010) [21] | Adults and children (n = 15) | -High sensitivity (100%) and specificity (94–96%) for detection of nodal and extranodal disease |
Wei et al. (2015) [22] | Adults (n = 29) | -Significant reduction in SUVmax during interim and post-therapy PET/CTs -SUV decease > 50% after post-therapy PET/CT was a favorable cutoff point to predict OS |