4.1 Review

Exploiting gene mutations and biomarkers to guide treatment recommendations in mantle cell lymphoma

期刊

EXPERT REVIEW OF HEMATOLOGY
卷 14, 期 10, 页码 927-943

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17474086.2021.1950529

关键词

Mantle cell; novel therapies; molecular high-risk features; p53; complex karyotypes; ngs; mrd; precision medicine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Treatment outcomes for MCL have improved, but high-risk patients still face poor prognosis. Studies indicate that high-risk molecular features are driving a new treatment paradigm, with advancements in novel therapies and diagnostics potentially enhancing outcomes for MCL patients.
Introduction: While there has been an improvement in the treatment of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) in both median progression-free survival (PFS; >7-8 years) and overall survival (OS; >10-12 years), patients with high-risk features such as high risk MIPI (mantle cell international prognostic index), high Ki-67 (>= 30%), or blastoid variants still carry poor outcome with a median OS of 3 years. Furthermore, patients with high-risk molecular features, such as TP53 mutations, show dismal outcome, with a median OS of 1.8 years, regardless of therapy used. Further studies have led to the development of six novel drugs approved for the treatment of relapse/refractory (R/R) MCL, leading to improved survival even in refractory or high-risk patients. Areas covered: This review covers clinical biological and molecular features that impact MCL outcome with current standards. Beyond the recognition of separate subentities, we review how high-risk molecular features have paved the way toward a new paradigm away from chemoimmunotherapy. Expert opinion: Progress in novel therapies and in routine diagnostics, particularly next-generation sequencing (NGS), support the development of new treatment strategies, not based on the dose intensity/age dichotomy, which may prevent the need for chemotherapy and improve outcome across MCL including in high-risk subsets.

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

4.1
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