4.6 Article

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: 2019 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and treatment

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HEMATOLOGY
卷 94, 期 5, 页码 604-616

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajh.25460

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Disease OverviewDiffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common type of aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma originating from the germinal center, and it represents a heterogeneous group of diseases with variable outcomes that are differentially characterized by clinical features, cell of origin (COO), molecular features, and most recently, frequently recurring mutations. DiagnosisDLBCL is ideally diagnosed from an excisional biopsy of a suspicious lymph node, which shows sheets of large cells that disrupt the underlying structural integrity of the follicle center and stain positive for pan-B-cell antigens, such as CD20 and CD79a. COO is determined by immunohistochemical stains, while molecular features such as double-hit or triple-hit disease are determined by fluorescent in situ hybridization analysis. Commercial tests for frequently recurring mutations are currently not routinely used to inform treatment. Risk StratificationClinical prognostic systems for DLBCL, including the rituximab International Prognostic Index, age-adjusted IPI, and NCCN-IPI, use clinical factors for the risk stratification of patients, although this does not affect the treatment approach. Furthermore, DLBCL patients with non-germinal center B-cell (GCB)-like DLBCL (activated B-cell like and unclassifiable) have a poorer response to up-front chemoimmunotherapy (CI) compared to patients with GCB-like DLBCL. Those with c-MYC-altered disease alone and in combination with translocations in BCL2 and/or BCL6 (particularly when the MYC translocation partner is immunoglobulin) respond poorly to up-front CI and salvage autologous stem cell transplant at relapse. Risk-Adapted TherapyThis review will focus on differential treatment of DLBCL up-front and at the time of relapse by COO and molecular features.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据