Response criteria for disease assessment have important therapeutic and prognostic implications in clinical trials and in routine clinical practice. The Lugano classification has been used widely for evaluation of the response of patients with lymphoma to treatment, although the alternative Response Evaluation Criteria In Lymphoma 2017 (RECIL 2017) classification was recently proposed; these criteria are compared herein.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Younes, A. et al. International Working Group consensus response evaluation criteria in lymphoma (RECIL 2017). Ann. Oncol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdx097 (2017).
Cheson, B. D. et al. Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: the Lugano classification. J. Clin. Oncol. 32, 3059–3068 (2014).
Jerusalem, G. et al. Whole-body positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose for posttreatment evaluation in Hodgkin's disease and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma has higher diagnostic and prognostic value than classical computed tomography scan imaging. Blood 94, 429–433 (1999).
Spaepen, K. et al. Prognostic value of positron emission tomography (PET) with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose ([18F]FDG) after first-line chemotherapy in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: is [18F]FDG-PET a valid alternative to conventional diagnostic methods? J. Clin. Oncol. 19, 414–419 (2001).
Reinhardt, M. J., Herkel, C., Altehoefer, C., Finke, J. & Moser, E. Computed tomography and 18F-FDG positron emission tomography for therapy control of Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients: when do we really need FDG-PET? Ann. Oncol. 16, 1524–1529 (2005).
Cheson, B. D. et al. Refinement of the Lugano Classification lymphoma response criteria in the era of immunomodulatory therapy. Blood 128, 2489–2496 (2016).
Hutchings, M. et al. In vivo treatment sensitivity testing with positron emission tomography/computed tomography after one cycle of chemotherapy for Hodgkin lymphoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 32, 2705–2711 (2014).
Johnson, P. et al. Adapted treatment guided by interim PET-CT scan in advanced Hodgkin's lymphoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 374, 2419–2429 (2016).
Dabaja, B. S. et al. Clinical implications of positron emission tomography-negative residual computed tomography masses after chemotherapy for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Leuk. Lymphoma 54, 2631–2638 (2013).
Roschewski, M. et al. Dynamic monitoring of circulating tumor DNA in non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood 127, 3127–3132 (2016).
Acknowledgements
The work of V.R.B. is supported by the 2016–2017 Physician–Scientist Training Program Grant from the College of Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, USA.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
J.O.A is a consultant for Conatus (independent data monitoring committee) and Samus Therapeutics, and is a member of the board of directors for Tesaro. V.R.B. declares no competing interests.
PowerPoint slides
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bhatt, V., Armitage, J. Staging and restaging patients with lymphoma — a better approach?. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 14, 527–528 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.81
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.81
