Abstract

Hodgkin lymphoma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma are common malignancies in children and are now highly treatable. Imaging plays a major role in diagnosis, staging and response using conventional CT and MRI and metabolic imaging with positron emission tomography (PET)/CT and PET/MRI. Cross-sectional imaging has replaced staging laparotomy and splenectomy by demonstrating abdominal nodal groups and organ involvement. [F-18]2-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose (FDG) PET provides information on bone marrow involvement, and MRI elucidates details of cortical bone and confirmation of bone marrow involvement. The staging system for Hodgkin lymphoma is the Ann Arbor system with Cotswald modifications and is based on imaging, whereas the non-Hodgkin staging system is the St. Jude Classification by Murphy or the more recent revised International Pediatric Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Staging System (IPNHLSS). Because all pediatric lymphomas are metabolically FDG-avid and identify all nodal, solid organ, cortical bone and bone marrow disease, staging evaluations require FDG PET as PET/CT or PET/MRI in both Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Both diseases have in common issues of airway compromise at presentation demonstrated by imaging. Differences exist in that Hodgkin lymphoma has several independent poor prognostic factors seen by imaging such as large mediastinal adenopathy, Stage IV disease, systemic symptoms, pleural effusion and pericardial effusion. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma includes more organ involvement such as renal, ovary, central nervous system and skin. Early or interim PET-negative scans are a reliable indicator of improved clinical outcome and optimize risk-adapted therapy and patient management; imaging may not, however, predict who will relapse. A recent multicenter trial has concluded that it is usually sufficient for pediatric lymphoma at staging and interim assessment to evaluate children with PET imaging from skull base to mid-thigh. Various systems of assessment of presence of disease or response are used, including the Deauville visual scale, where avidity is compared to liver; Lugano, which includes size change as part of response; or quantitative PET, which uses standardized uptake values to define more accurate response. Newer methods of immunotherapy can produce challenges in FDG PET evaluation because of inflammatory changes that may not represent disease.

View details for DOI 10.1007/s00247-019-04529-8

View details for PubMedID 31620854