Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2011 Nov 30.
Published in final edited form as: European J Clin Med Oncol. 2010 Feb;2(1):131–138.

Table 2.

Comparison of the predictive value of an end-of-therapy 18F-FDG PET scan versus CT scan for relapse in NHL

Series No of HL cases N PET+ and CT+ PET+ and CT- PET- and CT+ PET- and CT-
Total Relapse Total Relapse Total Relapse Total Relapse Total Relapse
De Wit et al 18 17 34 8 16 7 1 1 16 0 1 0
Jerusalem et al 19 19 54 14 5 5 1 1 19 5 29 3
Zinzani et al 20 13 44 14 13 13 0 0 24 1 7 0
Mikhaeel et al 21 0 33 11 5 5 1 1 12 2 15 3
Spaepen et al 22 0 93 37 12 12 14 14 14 1 53 10
Kostakoglu et al 24 10 23 11 1 0 5 5 1 1 16 5
Zinzani et al 26 10 75 14 11 10 5 4 30 0 29 0
Kumar et al 23 0 18 7 6 6 0 0 3 0 9 1
Reinhardt et al 27 34 101 28 24 20 0 0 57 8 20 0
Han et al 29 0 48 7 7 1 2 0 9 2 30 4
Total 127 523 151 100 79 29 26 185 20 209 26
Relapse rate 29% 79% 90% 11% 12%

Abbreviations: 18F-FDG PET: 18Flourine-Flourodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography, CT: Computed Tomography, NHL: Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, HL: Hodgkin Lymphoma.