Evidence Hub

The Prognostic Role of Interim [18F]FDG PET/CT in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Albano D, Chauvie S, Rizzo A, Bertagna F, Casadei B, Vitolo U, Tucci A, Zinzani PL et al.

Clinical lymphoma, myeloma & leukemia, 2026

335 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

The prognostic value of interim 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (iPET/CT) in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) remains a subject of debate due to inconsistencies in timing and interpretation. This updated systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the ability of iPET to predict progression-free survival (PFS). A systematic literature search was conducted across PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Embase databases until December 31, 2025. Studies investigating the prognostic value of iPET/CT for PFS in DLBCL were included. Data on complete metabolic response (CMR) rates and hazard ratios (HR) for PFS were pooled using a random-effects model. The pooled CMR rate across 66 articles (9.335 patients) was 67.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]. 63.9%-70.4%), though significant variability (38%-94%) and extreme heterogeneity were observed (I2 = 92.45%). Subgroup analysis confirmed that timing influenced these rates: CMR was 63.3% after 2 cycles vs. 74.4% after 4 cycles. Regarding PFS, the pooled HR across 63 studies was 3.05 (95% CI, 2.63-3.54) for a positive iPET. Notably, utilizing a Deauville score (DS) threshold of 5 alone yielded a significantly higher pooled HR of 5.72 (95% CI, 4.35-7.51) with more moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 40.7%). In contrast, the prognostic effect of ΔSUV66% was weaker, with a pooled HR of 1.83. Scans performed after 4 cycles (iPET4, HR: 3.20) showed slightly stronger prognostic performance than those…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 335 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free