Clinical PET pp 372-386 | Cite as


  • E. Edmund Kim
  • Franklin C. L. Wong


The term lymphoma identifies two distinct groups of tumors: Hodgkin’s disease (HD) and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL). Since the late 1970s, significant progress has been made in the elucidation of the pathogenesis of NHL as a clonal malignant expansion of B or T cells. B lymphocytes are generated in the bone marrow as a result of a multistep differentiation process. On entering the germinal center (GC), B cells activate into centroblasts, proliferate, and mature into centrocytes. Cells that have exited the GC have two fates: differentiation into either plasma cells or memory B cells. Based on the absence or presence of somatic immunoglobulin (Ig) hypermutation, B-cell NHL may be distinguished into two broad histogenetic categories: One derived from pre-GC B cells and devoid of Ig mutations (mantle cell lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma), and the other derived from B cells that have transited through the GC and harbor 1g mutations (follicular lymphoma, lymphoplasmacytoid lymphoma, mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma, diffuse large cell lymphoma, Burkitt’s lymphoma). The pathogenesis of lymphoma represents a multistep process involving the progressive and clonal accumulation of multiple genetic lesions affecting proto-oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes. The genome of lymphoma cells is relatively stable and is characterized by few nonrandom chromosomal abnormalities, commonly represented by chromosomal translocations.


Positron Emission Tomography Standard Uptake Value Germinal Center Mantle Cell Lymphoma Meet Uptake 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Sandlund JT, Downing JR, Crist WM. Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in childhood. N Engl J Med 1996; 334: 1238–1241.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jemal A, Thomas A, Murray T, et al. Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2002; 52: 23–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Newton R, Ferlay J, Beral V, et al. The epidemiology of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: comparison of nodal and extra-nodal sites. Int J Cancer 1997; 72: 923–927.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Glass AG, Karnell LH, Menck HR. The National Cancer Data Base report on non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Cancer 1997; 80: 2311–2320.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weisenburger D. The International Lymphoma Study Group Classification of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: pathology findings from a large multicenter study. Mod Pathol 1997; 10: 136A.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Larcos G, Farlow DC, Antico VF, et al. The role of high dose Ga-67 scintigraphy in staging untreated patients with lymphoma. Aust NZ J Med 1994; 24: 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tatsumi M, Kitayama H, Sugahara H, et al. Whole-body hybrid PET with F-18 FDG in the staging of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Nucl Med 2001; 42: 601–608.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carr R, Barrington S, Madam B, et al. Detection of lymphoma in bone marrow by whole-body positron emission tomography. Blood 1998; 91: 33403346.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Finkelstein JD, Martin JJ. Methionine metabolism in mammals. J Biol Chem 1986; 26: 1582–1587.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leskinen-Kallio S, Ruotsalainem U, Nägren K, et al. Uptake of C-11 me-thionine and fluorodeoxyglucose in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a PET study. J Nucl Med 1991; 32: 1211–1218.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rodriguez M, Rehn S, Ahlström H, et al. Predicting malignancy grade with PET in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Nucl Med 1995; 36: 1790–1796.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sutinen E, Jyrkiö S, Varpula M, et al. Nodal staging of lymphoma with whole-body PET: comparison of C-11 methionine and FDG. J Nucl Med 2000; 41: 1980–1988.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kubota R, Kubota K, Yamada S, et al. Methionine uptake by tumor tissue: a microautoradiographic comparison with FDG. J Nucl Med 1995; 36: 484492.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Charion M, Beyer T, Kinahan PE, et al. Whole-body FDG PET and CT imaging of malignancies using a combined PET/CT scanner. J Nucl Med 1999; 40: 256.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moog F, Kotzerke J, Reske SN. FDG-PET can replace bone scintigraphy in primary staging of malignant lymphoma. J Nucl Med 1999; 40: 1407–1413.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lapela M, Leskinen-Kallio S, Minn H, et al. Increased glucose metabolism in untreated non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: a study with PET and F-18 FDG. Blood 1995; 9: 3522–3527.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hoffman JM, Waskin HA, Schif ter T, et al. FDG-PET in differentiating lymphoma from nonmalignant central nervous system lesions in patients with AIDS. J Nucl Med 1993; 34: 567–575.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    DeVita VT, Cannelos GP. The lymphomas. Semin Hematol 1999; 36: 84–94.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Surbone A, Longo DL, DeVita VL, et al. Residual abdominal masses in aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after combination chemotherapy; significance and management. J Clin Oncol 1988; 6: 1832–1837.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Janicek M, Kaplan W, Neuberg D, et al. Early re-staging gallium scans predict outcome in poor prognosis patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma treated with high-dose CHOP chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15: 1631–1637.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Front D, Bar-Shalom R, Mor M, et al. Aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: early prediction of outcome with Ga-67 scintigraphy. Radiology 2000; 214: 253–257.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hill M, Cunningham D, MacVicar D, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging in predicting relapse in residual masses after treatment of lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 1993; 11: 2273–2278.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kostakoglu L, Leonard JP, Coleman M, et al. Comparison of F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose PET and Ga-67 scintigraphy in evaluation of lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2000; 19: 10a.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mikhaeel NG, Timothy AR, Hain SF, O’Doherty MJ. F-18 FDG PET for the assessment of residual masses on CT following treatment of lymphomas. Ann Oncol 2000; 11: 147–150.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Romer W, Hanauske A, Ziegler S, et al. Positron emission tomography in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma: assessment of chemotherapy with fluorodeoxyglucose. Blood 1998; 91: 4464 4471.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kostakoglu L, Coleman M, Leonard JP, et al. PET predicts prognosis after 1 cycle of chemotherapy in aggressive lymphoma and Hodgkin’s disease. J Nucl Med 2002; 43: 1018–1027.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte MF, et al. Whole-body PET using F-18 FDG for post-treatment evaluation in Hodgkin’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has higher diagnostic and prognostic value than classical CT scan imaging. Blood 1999; 94: 429–433.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Torizuka T, Zasadny KR, Kison PV, et al. Metabolic response of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma to I-131 anti-B1 radioimmunotherapy: evaluation with FDG PET. J Nucl Med 2000; 41: 999–1005.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hoskin PJ. FDG PET in the management of lymphoma: a clinical perspective. Eur J Nucl Med 2002; 29: 449–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Edmund Kim
  • Franklin C. L. Wong

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations