These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Hodgkin lymphoma patients in first remission: routine positron emission tomography/computerized tomography imaging is not superior to clinical follow-up for patients with no residual mass.
    Author: Dann EJ, Berkahn L, Mashiach T, Frumer M, Agur A, McDiarmid B, Bar-Shalom R, Paltiel O, Goldschmidt N.
    Journal: Br J Haematol; 2014 Mar; 164(5):694-700. PubMed ID: 24313286.
    Abstract:
    There is no consensus regarding optimal follow-up mode for Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) patients that achieve complete remission following chemotherapy or combined chemo- and radiation therapy. Several studies demonstrated high sensitivity of positron emission tomography/computerized tomography (PET/CT) in detecting disease progression; however, these techniques are currently not recommended for routine follow-up. This retrospective study conducted in two Israeli (N = 291) and one New Zealand academic centres (N = 77), compared a group of HL patients, followed-up with routine imaging every 6 months during the first 2 years after achieving remission, once in the third year, with additional dedicated studies performed due to symptoms or physical findings (Group I) to a group of patients without residual masses who underwent clinically-based surveillance with dedicated imaging upon relapse suspicion (Group II). Five-year overall survival (OS) was 94% and median time to relapse was 8·6 months for both modes. Relapse rates in Groups I and II were 13% and 9%, respectively. During the first 3 years of follow-up, 47·5 and 4·7 studies were performed per detected relapse in Groups I and II, respectively. The current study demonstrated no benefit in either progression-free survival (PFS) or OS in HL patients followed by routine imaging versus clinical follow-up. The cost was 10 times higher for routine imaging.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]