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

S Shiyu Jiang (Department of Chemistry, Rice University, 6100 Main Street, Houston, Texas 77005, United States) S Simin He (State Key Laboratory of Chemical Resource Engineering Beijing University of Chemical Technology Beijing P. R. China) Y Youli Li (Materials Research Laboratory and BioPolymers, Automated Cellular Infrastructure, Flow, and Integrated Chemistry Materials Innovation Platform (BioPACIFIC MIP), University of California) Q Qunling Zhang (Department of Medical Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center) J Junying Liu J Jia Jin (1Department of Medical Oncology Fudan University Shangahi Cancer Center, Shanghai, China) C Chuanxu Liu (2Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China) Y Yi-Zhen Liu (Department of Medical Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China; Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China) J Junning Cao (1Department of Medical Oncology Fudan University Shangahi Cancer Center, Shanghai, China) X Xiaojian Liu F Fangfang Lv (15Fudan University, Shanghai, China) W Wenhao Zhang (School of Physical Science and Technology, ShanghaiTech University, 393 Middle Huaxia Road, Shanghai 201210, China) X Xiaosheng Liu Y Yuankai Shi (19Cancer Hospital (Institute), CAMS & PUMC, Beijing, China)

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.

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 44, Issue 16_suppl
Published June 01, 2026
ISSN 0732-183X
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0732-183X Health Sciences

Authors (14)

S

Shiyu Jiang

Department of Chemistry, Rice University, 6100 Main Street, Houston, Texas 77005, United States

S

Simin He

State Key Laboratory of Chemical Resource Engineering Beijing University of Chemical Technology Beijing P. R. China

Y

Youli Li

Materials Research Laboratory and BioPolymers, Automated Cellular Infrastructure, Flow, and Integrated Chemistry Materials Innovation Platform (BioPACIFIC MIP), University of California

Q

Qunling Zhang

Department of Medical Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center

J

Junying Liu

J

Jia Jin

1Department of Medical Oncology Fudan University Shangahi Cancer Center, Shanghai, China

C

Chuanxu Liu

2Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China

Y

Yi-Zhen Liu

Department of Medical Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China; Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China

J

Junning Cao

1Department of Medical Oncology Fudan University Shangahi Cancer Center, Shanghai, China

X

Xiaojian Liu

F

Fangfang Lv

15Fudan University, Shanghai, China

W

Wenhao Zhang

School of Physical Science and Technology, ShanghaiTech University, 393 Middle Huaxia Road, Shanghai 201210, China

X

Xiaosheng Liu

Y

Yuankai Shi

19Cancer Hospital (Institute), CAMS & PUMC, Beijing, China