The Optimal Background Cut-Off Threshold for Calculating Volumetric PET Biomarkers as Prognostic Factors in Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma

AIM. To determine the optimal background cut-off threshold for calculating volumetric PET biomarkers as prognostic factors in classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL).

MATERIALS & METHODS. The retrospective analysis was based on the data from 79 patients with various stages of newly diagnosed cHL, who underwent PET/CT at the AN Bakulev Center for Cardiovascular Surgery. The analysis was focused on 341 PET/CT scans (prior to treatment, after completing the first-line therapy, and at different stages of follow-up period). The median follow-up was 12 months. During this period, 75 % of patients showed sustaining remission, in 16 % of patients refractoriness and in 9 % of patients relapse were observed; no deaths were reported. The volumetric PET biomarkers, i.e., the total metabolic tumor volume (TMTV) and total lesion glycolysis (TLG), were calculated automatically using four background cut-off thresholds: two absolute (SUVmax ≥ 2.5 and SUVmax ≥ 4.0), one relative (41 % of SUVmax), and one background (SUVliver) thresholds.

RESULTS. To determine the prognostic value of the parameters under consideration, two patients subgroups were analyzed: the 1st one with remission (n = 59) and the 2nd one with relapsed/refractory cHL (n = 20). These subgroups showed significant differences in TMTV and TLG values with three different background cut-off thresholds (SUVmax ≥ 2.5, 41 % of SUVmax, SUVliver). A significant correlation was established between poor outcomes and high levels of TLG_2.5 (p = 0.038), TMTV_41%, and TLG_41% (p = 0.012 and p = 0.040, respectively) as well as TMTV_liver and TLG_liver (p = 0.023 and p = 0.009, respectively). By univariate and multivariate analyses, the baseline TMTV_41% values were associated with the risk of poor outcomes in cHL irrespective of the GHSG prognostic score.

CONCLUSION. High level of the baseline volumetric PET biomarkers is associated with poor prognosis in cHL. By comparing the values of volumetric PET biomarkers, the optimal background cut-off threshold appeared to be 41 % of SUVmax. The TMTV and TLG values calculated with this threshold showed the highest accuracy in assessing the risk of poor outcomes irrespective of other prognostic factors.

• Mariya Vasilevna Metelkina AN Bakulev Center for Cardiovascular Surgery, 135 Rublevskoe sh., Moscow, Russian Federation, 121552 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1831-0675 (unauthenticated)
• I.P. Aslanidi AN Bakulev Center for Cardiovascular Surgery, 135 Rublevskoe sh., Moscow, Russian Federation, 121552 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6386-2378 (unauthenticated)
• O.V. Mukhortova AN Bakulev Center for Cardiovascular Surgery, 135 Rublevskoe sh., Moscow, Russian Federation, 121552 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7716-5896 (unauthenticated)
• D.M. Pursanova AN Bakulev Center for Cardiovascular Surgery, 135 Rublevskoe sh., Moscow, Russian Federation, 121552 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1846-0115 (unauthenticated)
• V.A. Manukova AN Bakulev Center for Cardiovascular Surgery, 135 Rublevskoe sh., Moscow, Russian Federation, 121552 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9157-6077 (unauthenticated)
• I.V. Shurupova AN Bakulev Center for Cardiovascular Surgery, 135 Rublevskoe sh., Moscow, Russian Federation, 121552 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2154-474X (unauthenticated)
• T.A. Trifonova AN Bakulev Center for Cardiovascular Surgery, 135 Rublevskoe sh., Moscow, Russian Federation, 121552 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9727-4213 (unauthenticated)
• D.D. Zubkov AN Bakulev Center for Cardiovascular Surgery, 135 Rublevskoe sh., Moscow, Russian Federation, 121552 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7251-2422 (unauthenticated)
• A.S. Rumyantsev AN Bakulev Center for Cardiovascular Surgery, 135 Rublevskoe sh., Moscow, Russian Federation, 121552 https://orcid.org/0009-0000-7008-5781 (unauthenticated)

1. Голухова Е.З. Отчет о лечебной и научной работе Национального медицинского исследовательского центра сердечно-сосудистой хирургии им. А.Н. Бакулева Минздрава России за 2024 г. Перспективы дальнейшего развития. Сердечно-сосудистые заболевания. Бюллетень НЦССХ им. А.Н. Бакулева РАМН. 2025;26(спецвыпуск):5–130. doi: 10.24022/1810-0694-2025-26S. [Golukhova E.Z. Report on the clinical and scientific activity of Bakoulev National Medical Research Center for Cardiovascular Surgery for 2024. Development prospects. The Bulletin of Bakoulev Center. Cardiovascular Diseases. 2025;26(Special Issue):5–130. doi: 10.24022/1810-0694-2025-26S. (In Russ)] DOI: https://doi.org/10.24022/1810-0694-2025-26S
2. Пурсанова Д.М., Асланиди И.П, Мухортова О.В. и др. ПЭТ/КТ в диагностике инфекционного эндокардита: факторы, влияющие на информативность. Бюллетень НЦССХ им. А.Н. Бакулева РАН. Сердечно-сосудистые заболевания. 2022;23(S3):117. [Pursanova D.M., Aslanidi I.P, Mukhortova O.V., et al. PET/CT in the diagnosis of infective endocarditis: factors affecting the information content. The Bulletin of Bakoulev Center. Cardiovascular Diseases. 2022;23(S3):117. (In Russ)]
3. Манукова В.А., Асланиди И.П., Мухортова О.В. и др. Однодневная методика ПЭТ/КТ с двумя радиофармпрепаратами у больных множественной миеломой. Медицинская радиология и радиационная безопасность. 2025;70(2):119–25. doi: 10.33266/1024-6177-2025-70-2-119-125. [Manukova V.A., Aslanidis I.P., Mukhortova O.V., et al. 11C-Methionine and 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose PET/CT in Multiple Myeloma Patients — One-Day Investigation. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2025;70(2):119–25. doi: 10.33266/1024-6177-2025-70-2-119-125. (In Russ)] DOI: https://doi.org/10.33266/1024-6177-2025-70-2-119-125
4. Асланиди И.П., Метелкина М.В., Мухортова О.В. и др. Объмные ПЭТ-биомаркеры при лимфоме Ходжкина. Первый опыт автоматического и ручного методов оценки. REJR. 2022;12(1):80–8. doi: 10.21569/2222-7415-2022-12-1-80-88. [Aslanidis I.P., Metelkina M.V., Mukhortova O.V., et al. Volumetric PET-biomarkers in Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The initial experience of automatic and manual methods of evaluation. REJR. 2022;12(1):80–8. doi: 10.21569/2222-7415-2022-12-1-80-88. (In Russ)] DOI: https://doi.org/10.21569/2222-7415-2022-12-1-80-88
5. Hasenclever D, Diehl V. A prognostic score for advanced Hodgkin’s disease. International Prognostic Factors Project on Advanced Hodgkin’s Disease. N Engl J Med. 1998;339(21):1506–14. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199811193392104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199811193392104
6. Diefenbach CS, Li H, Hong F, et al. Evaluation of the International Prognostic Score (IPS-7) and a Simpler Prognostic Score (IPS-3) for advanced Hodgkin lymphoma in the modern era. Br J Haematol. 2015;171(4):530–8. doi: 10.1111/bjh.13634. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjh.13634
7. Kanoun S, Tal I, Berriolo-Riedinger A, et al. Influence of Software Tool and Methodological Aspects of Total Metabolic Tumor Volume Calculation on Baseline [18F]FDG PET to Predict Survival in Hodgkin Lymphoma. PLoS One. 2015;10(10):e0140830. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0140830. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140830
8. Wang X, Zhao Y, Liu Y, et al. Prognostic value of metabolic variables of [18F]FDG PET/CT in surgically resected stage I lung adenocarcinoma. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(35):e7941. doi: 10.1097/md.0000000000007941. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000007941
9. Salavati A, Duan F, Snyder BS, et al. Optimal FDG PET/CT volumetric parameters for risk stratification in patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer: results from the ACRIN 6668/RTOG 0235 trial. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44(12):1969–83. doi: 10.1007/s00259-017-3753-x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3753-x
10. Kostakoglu L, Chauvie S. Metabolic Tumor Volume Metrics in Lymphoma. Semin Nucl Med. 2018;48(1):50–66. doi: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2017.09.005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2017.09.005
11. Akhtari M, Milgrom S, Pinnix C, et al. Reclassifying patients with early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma based on functional radiographic markers at presentation. Blood. 2018;131(1):84–94. doi: 10.1182/blood-2017-04-773838. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2017-04-773838
12. Im HJ, Solaiyappan M, Lee I, et al. Multi-level otsu method to define metabolic tumor volume in positron emission tomography. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;8(6):373–86.
13. Barrington SF, Meignan MA. Time to prepare for risk adaptation in lymphoma by standardising measurement of metabolic tumour burden. J Nucl Med. 2019;60(8):1096–102. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.119.227249. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.119.227249
14. Tamandl D, Fueger B, Haug A, et al. Diagnostic Algorithm That Combines Quantitative 18F-FDG PET Parameters and Contrast-Enhanced CT Improves Posttherapeutic Locoregional Restaging and Prognostication of Survival in Patients With Esophageal Cancer. Clin Nucl Med. 2019;44(1):e13–e21. doi: 10.1097/rlu.0000000000002366. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/RLU.0000000000002366
15. Choi W, Oh J, Roh J, et al. Metabolic tumor volume and total lesion glycolysis predict tumor progression and survival after salvage surgery for recurrent oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck. 2019;41(6):1846–53. doi: 10.1002/hed.25622. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.25622
16. Albano D, Mazzoletti A, Spallino M, et al. Prognostic role of baseline 18F-FDG PET/CT metabolic parameters in elderly HL: a two-center experience in 123 patients. Ann Hematol. 2020;99(6):1321–30. doi: 10.1007/s00277-020-04039-w. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00277-020-04039-w
17. Mhlanga J, Chirindel A, Lodge M, et al. Quantitative PET/CT in clinical practice: assessing the agreement of PET tumor indices using different clinical reading platforms. Nucl Med Commun. 2018;39(2):154–60. doi: 10.1097/mnm.0000000000000786. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MNM.0000000000000786
18. Brito A, Mourato F, Santos A, et al. Validation of the Semiautomatic Quantification of 18F-Fluoride PET/CT Whole-Body Skeletal Tumor Burden. J Nucl Med Technol. 2018;46(4):378–83. doi: 10.2967/jnmt.118.211474. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.118.211474
19. Martín-Saladich Q, Reynés-Llompart G, Sabaté-Llobera A, et al. Comparison of different automatic methods for the delineation of the total metabolic tumor volume in I-II stage Hodgkin Lymphoma. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):12590. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-69577-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-69577-9
20. Метелкина М.В., Асланиди И.П., Мухортова О.В. и др. Высокие значения исходных объемных ПЭТ-биомаркеров как предикторы неблагоприятного прогноза классической лимфомы Ходжкина. Медицинская визуализация. 2023;27(3):152–61. doi: 10.24835/1607-0763-1343. [Metelkina M.V., Aslanidis I.P., Mukhortova O.V., et al. High values of baseline volumetric PET biomarkers in classical Hodgkin’s lymphoma as predictors of unfavourable prognosis. Medical Visualization. 2023;27(3):152–61. doi: 10.24835/1607-0763-1343. (In Russ)] DOI: https://doi.org/10.24835/1607-0763-1343
21. Song MK, Chung JS, Lee JJ, et al. Metabolic tumor volume by positron emission tomography/computed tomography as a clinical parameter to determine therapeutic modality for early stage Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Cancer Sci. 2013;104(12):1656–61. doi: 10.1111/cas.12282. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cas.12282
22. Cottereau AS, Versari A, Loft A, et al. Prognostic value of baseline metabolic tumor volume in early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma in the standard arm of the H10 trial. Blood. 2018;131(13):1456–63. doi: 10.1182/blood-2017-07-795476. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2017-07-795476
23. Herraez I, Bento L, Daumal J, et al. Total Lesion Glycolysis Improves Tumor Burden Evaluation and Risk Assessment at Diagnosis in Hodgkin Lymphoma. J Clin Med. 2021;10(19):4396. doi: 10.3390/jcm10194396. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10194396
24. Mettler J, Müller H, Voltin CA, et al. Metabolic tumour volume for response prediction in advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 2018;60(2):207–11. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.118.210047. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.118.210047
25. Van Heek L, Stuka C, Kaul H, et al. Predictive value of baseline metabolic tumor volume in early-stage favorable Hodgkin Lymphoma – Data from the prospective, multicenter phase III HD16 trial. BMC Cancer. 2022;22(1):672. doi: 10.1186/s12885-022-09758-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-022-09758-z
26. Tutino F, Puccini G, Linguanti F, et al. Baseline metabolic tumor volume calculation using different SUV thresholding methods in Hodgkin Lymphoma patients: interobserver agreement and reproducibility across software platforms. Nucl Med Commun. 2021;42(3):284–91. doi: 10.1097/MNM.0000000000001324. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MNM.0000000000001324
27. Knaup H, Weindler J, van Heek L, et al. PET/CT Reconstruction and Its Impact on [Measures of] Metabolic Tumor Volume. Acad Radiol. 2024;31(7):3020–5. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2023.12.016. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2023.12.016
28. Driessen J, Zwezerijnen GJC, Schöder H, et al. The Impact of Semiautomatic Segmentation Methods on Metabolic Tumor Volume, Intensity, and Dissemination Radiomics in 18F-FDG PET Scans of Patients with Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 2022;63(9):1424–30. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.121.263067. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.121.263067
29. Ferhanoglu B, Kim TM, Karduss A, et al. Treatment pathways and clinical outcomes in Hodgkin lymphoma outside Europe and North America: results from the international, multicenter, retrospective, B-HOLISTIC study. Leuk Lymphoma. 2022;63(14):3317–30. doi: 10.1080/10428194.2022.2126281. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10428194.2022.2126281