Diagnostic Contribution of Contrast-Enhanced CT as Compared with Unenhanced Low-Dose CT in PET/CT Staging and Treatment Response Assessment of 18F-FDG–Avid Lymphomas: A Prospective Study

Abstract

Visual Abstract The aim of this study was to assess the added diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) as compared with unenhanced CT (UECT) in PET/CT staging and treatment response assessment of 18F-FDG–avid lymphomas. Methods: 170 PET/UECT scans followed by CECT scans were prospectively performed for staging (n = 85) and for treatment response assessment (n = 85) of 18F-FDG–avid lymphomas, during a single session using an integrated 64-slice PET/CT scanner. CECT and UECT images were evaluated separately by 2 radiologists, whereas PET images were evaluated by 2 nuclear physicians. Nodal and extranodal UECT and CECT findings were classified according to the Lugano criteria and were successively compared with PET/CT results, considered the gold standard. In the analyzed groups, the agreement rate with the disease status determined via PET was calculated separately for UECT and CECT using the McNemar test on paired data. The added value of the contrast medium was shown by the agreement between the PET and CECT results and the lack of agreement between UECT and PET. Results: CECT enabled the identification of additional extranodal lesions (hepatic, muscular, and gastric) in only 3 staging group cases (3.5%), indicating different stages as compared with UECT, whereas there was absolute agreement between CECT and UECT in terms of treatment response assessment. The added diagnostic value of CECT was lower than the established threshold for clinical relevance (15%). The McNemar test indicated no statistical significance in either group. The incidental findings detected by CECT but not UECT were important for clinical management but not sufficient to alter lymphoma treatment strategy. Conclusion: According to our results, it might be possible to exclude CECT examination of 18F-FDG–avid lymphoma from staging and treatment response assessment, with the consequent advantages of reducing radiation exposure and potential contrast-related risks.