Over the past decade, 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PETCT) has emerged as an important imaging modality in the management of lymphoma. Since the introduction of Deauville scoring system (2009) and the Lymphoma Response Assessment Criteria (2014), clinicians are now sharing a common language in the management of lymphoma. In Malaysia, nearly a third of PET-CT request is related to lymphoma imaging. Though there are extensive publications regarding these scoring systems and assessment criteria for lymphoma, there are hardly any literature on the reporting format for the 18F-FDG PET-CT in this disease. The variable reporting formats have on many occasions caused confusion not only to the referring clinicians but also to nuclear medicine physicians. Thus, a working committee comprising experienced nuclear medicine physicians and haematologists in Malaysia have agreed and made a joint recommendation on the standard reporting format for 18F-FDG PET-CT in Lymphoma. This recommendation will minimize inter-observer discrepancies in reporting, facilitate the understanding of the report of the referring clinicians as well as facilitate counseling between patients and clinicians in the management of the disease.

1. Azizah, A. M., Nor Saleha, I. T., Noor Hashimah, A., Asmah, Z. A., & Mastulu, W. (2011). Malaysia National Cancer Registry Report (2007–2011). National Cancer Institute, Ministry of Health Malaysia.
2. Weiler-Sagie, M., Bushelev, O., Epelbaum, R., Dann, E. J., Haim, N., Avivi, I., et al. (2010). 18F-FDG avidity in lymphoma readdressed: A study of 766 patients. Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 51, 25–30.
3. Barrington, S. F., Mikhaeel, N. G., Kostakoglu, L., Hutchings, M., Mueller, S. P., Schwartz, H., et al. (2014). Role of imaging in the staging and response assessment of lymphoma: Consensus of the International Conference on Malignant Lymphomas Imaging Working Group. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 32, 3048–3058.
4. Barrington, S. F., & Johnson, P. W. M. (2017). 18F-FDG PET/CT in lymphoma: Has imaging-directed personalized medicine become a reality? Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 58(10), 1539–1544.
5. Meignan, M., Gallamini, A., & Haioun, C. (2009). Report on the First International Workshop on Interim-PET-Scan in Lymphoma. Leukemia & Lymphoma, 50, 1257–1260.
6. Cheson, B. D., Fisher, R. I., Barrington, S. F., Cavalli, F., Schwartz, L. H., Zucca, E., et al. (2014). Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: The Lugano classification. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 32, 3059–3068.
7. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2017). Haematological cancers (NICE Guideline QS150).
8. Zelenetz, A. D., Gordon, L. I., Abramson, J. S., Advani, R. H., Bartlett, N. L., Caimi, P. F., et al. (2019). NCCN Guidelines Insights: B-cell lymphomas, Version 3.2019. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 17(6), 650–661.
9. Hofman, M. S., & Hicks, R. J. (2016). How we read oncologic FDG PET/CT. Cancer Imaging, 16, 35.
10. Paidisetty, S., & Blodgett, T. M. (2009). Brown fat: Atypical locations and appearances encountered in PET/CT. American Journal of Roentgenology, 193, 359–366.
11. Gerngroß, C., Schretter, J., Klingenspor, M., Schwaiger, M., & Fromme, T. (2017). Active brown fat during 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging defines a patient group with characteristic traits and an increased probability of brown fat redetection. Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 58, 1104–1110.
12. Dubreuil, J., Salles, G., Bozzetto, J., Tordo, J., Djaileb, L., & Berriolo-Riedinger, A., et al. (2017). Usual and unusual pitfalls of 18F-FDG-PET/CT in lymphoma after treatment: A pictorial review. Nuclear Medicine Communications, 38, 563–576.
13. El-Galaly, T. C., d’Amore, F., Mylam, K. J., de Nully Brown, P., Bogsted, M., Bukh, A., et al. (2012). Routine bone marrow biopsy has little or no therapeutic consequence for positron emission tomography/computed tomography staged treatment-naive patients with Hodgkin lymphoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 30, 4508–4514.
14. Richardson, S. E., Sudak, J., Warbey, V., Ramsay, A., & McNamara, C. J. (2012). Routine bone marrow biopsy is not necessary in the staging of patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma in the 18F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography era. Leukemia & Lymphoma, 53, 381–385.
15. Khan, A. B., Barrington, S. F., Mikhaeel, N. G., Hunt, A. A., Cameron, L., Morris, T., et al. (2013). PET-CT staging of DLBCL accurately identifies and provides new insight into the clinical significance of bone marrow involvement. Blood, 122, 61–67.
16. Adams, H. J., Kwee, T. C., de Keizer, B., Fijnheer, R., de Klerk, J. M., & Nievelstein, R. A. (2014). FDG PET/CT for the detection of bone marrow involvement in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: Systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, 41, 565–574.
17. Berthet, L., Cochet, A., Kanoun, S., Berriolo-Riedinger, A., Humbert, O., Toubeau, M., et al. (2013). In newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, determination of bone marrow involvement with 18F-FDG PET/CT provides better diagnostic performance and prognostic stratification than does biopsy. Journal of Nuclear Medicine, 54, 1244–1250.
18. Sirajuddin, A., Raparia, K., Lewis, V. A., Franks, T. J., Dhand, S., Galvin, J. R., et al. (2016). Primary pulmonary lymphoid lesions: Radiologic and pathologic findings. Radiographics, 36, 53–70.
19. Kis, A., Eszes, N., Tamasi, L., Losonczy, G., Csekeo, A., Csomor, J., et al. (2013). Sarcoidosis lymphoma syndrome: The value of PET-CT in the diagnosis. World Journal of Surgical Oncology, 11, 235.
20. Hu, Y. Y., Zhang, X., Long, W., Lin, X. P., Zhang, Y. R., Li, Y. H., et al. (2015). Cervical lymph node hyperplasia on [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography scan after treatment of children and adolescents with malignant lymphoma. European Journal of Radiology, 84, 1378–1382.
21. Kinahan, P. E., & Fletcher, J. W. (2010). PET/CT standardized uptake values (SUVs) in clinical practice and assessing response to therapy. Seminars in Ultrasound, CT and MRI, 31, 496–505.
22. Weiss, G. J., & Korn, R. L. (2012). Interpretation of PET scans: Do not take SUVs at face value. Journal of Thoracic Oncology, 7, 1744–1746.
23. Younes, A., Hilden, P., Coiffier, B., Hagenbeek, A., Salles, G., Wilson, W., et al. (2017). International Working Group consensus response evaluation criteria in lymphoma (RECIL 2017). Annals of Oncology, 28(7), 1436–1447.
24. Eisenhauer, E. A., Therasse, P., Bogaerts, J., Schwartz, L. H., Sargent, D., Ford, R., et al. (2009). New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). European Journal of Cancer, 45(2), 228–247.
25. International Atomic Energy Agency. (2013). Standard operating procedures for PET/CT: A practical approach for use in adult oncology. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.