Heterogeneity of interim PET partial metabolic response in DLBCL: Risk stratification using ΔSUVmax.

e19052 Background: Interim 18 F-FDG PET/CT (iPET) is widely used for response assessment in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). However, the Lugano classification relies on qualitative metabolic response categories, and the prognostic heterogeneity within Lugano-defined partial metabolic response (PMR) remains poorly characterized. Evidence supporting treatment modification based on iPET findings is also limited. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 125 newly diagnosed DLBCL patients who underwent 18 F-FDG PET/CT at baseline and after four cycles of first-line therapy. Interim response was assessed according to Lugano criteria and categorized as PMR or no metabolic response (NMR). The relative change in tumor SUVmax between baseline and interim PET (ΔSUVmax) was calculated as a quantitative imaging biomarker. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint. Multivariable Cox regression was used to identify independent prognostic factors. A composite risk score incorporating ΔSUVmax and International Prognostic Index (IPI) group was constructed to stratify patients into risk categories. Interaction analyses explored whether baseline risk modified the association between treatment modification after cycle 4 and PFS. Results: Among 125 patients, 122 (97.6%) were classified as PMR and 3 (2.4%) as NMR by Lugano criteria. During follow-up, 31 PFS events occurred. Unfavorable ΔSUVmax (<= 66%) independently predicted inferior PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 4.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.18–9.54; P<0.001). IPI group was also independently associated with PFS. The final model combining ΔSUVmax and IPI achieved a concordance index of 0.752. Risk stratification based on the composite score demonstrated clear separation of PFS among low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups (log-rank P<0.001). Formal interaction testing using a Cox model including an interaction term between risk group and treatment change revealed a borderline interaction effect (likelihood ratio test P≈0.10), suggesting that the impact of treatment modification may differ according to baseline risk level. Conclusions: Substantial prognostic heterogeneity exists within Lugano-defined PMR patients. Quantitative assessment using ΔSUVmax refines risk stratification beyond qualitative iPET criteria and may help contextualize treatment decisions following interim PET in DLBCL.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2026-05-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2026.44.16_suppl.e19052
Primary Topic
Lymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Heterogeneity of interim PET partial metabolic response in DLBCL: Risk stratification using ΔSUVmax.

Y. Li, J H Liu, X Liu, Fangfang Lv et al.
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Lymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
article

Heterogeneity of interim PET partial metabolic response in DLBCL: Risk stratification using ΔSUVmax.

Y. Li, J H Liu, X Liu, Fangfang Lv, Junning Cao, Simin He, Wenhao Zhang, Ying Liu, Jia Jin, Qunling Zhang, Yuankai Shi, Shiyu Jiang, Chuanxu Liu
article en

Abstract

e19052 Background: Interim 18 F-FDG PET/CT (iPET) is widely used for response assessment in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). However, the Lugano classification relies on qualitative metabolic response categories, and the prognostic heterogeneity within Lugano-defined partial metabolic response (PMR) remains poorly characterized. Evidence supporting treatment modification based on iPET findings is also limited. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 125 newly diagnosed DLBCL patients who underwent 18 F-FDG PET/CT at baseline and after four cycles of first-line therapy. Interim response was assessed according to Lugano criteria and categorized as PMR or no metabolic response (NMR). The relative change in tumor SUVmax between baseline and interim PET (ΔSUVmax) was calculated as a quantitative imaging biomarker. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint. Multivariable Cox regression was used to identify independent prognostic factors. A composite risk score incorporating ΔSUVmax and International Prognostic Index (IPI) group was constructed to stratify patients into risk categories. Interaction analyses explored whether baseline risk modified the association between treatment modification after cycle 4 and PFS. Results: Among 125 patients, 122 (97.6%) were classified as PMR and 3 (2.4%) as NMR by Lugano criteria. During follow-up, 31 PFS events occurred. Unfavorable ΔSUVmax (<= 66%) independently predicted inferior PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 4.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.18–9.54; P<0.001). IPI group was also independently associated with PFS. The final model combining ΔSUVmax and IPI achieved a concordance index of 0.752. Risk stratification based on the composite score demonstrated clear separation of PFS among low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups (log-rank P<0.001). Formal interaction testing using a Cox model including an interaction term between risk group and treatment change revealed a borderline interaction effect (likelihood ratio test P≈0.10), suggesting that the impact of treatment modification may differ according to baseline risk level. Conclusions: Substantial prognostic heterogeneity exists within Lugano-defined PMR patients. Quantitative assessment using ΔSUVmax refines risk stratification beyond qualitative iPET criteria and may help contextualize treatment decisions following interim PET in DLBCL.

Journal of Clinical OncologyVol. 44(16_suppl)
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College (CN), Fudan University (CN), National Cancer Center (US), Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center (CN)
National Natural Science Foundation of China
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Lymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.