4.6 Article

Central nervous system involvement by Waldenstrom macroglobulinaemia (Bing-Neel syndrome): a multi-institutional retrospective study

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
卷 172, 期 5, 页码 709-715

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bjh.13883

关键词

Bing-Neel syndrome; Waldenstrom macroglobulinaemia; lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma; central nervous system

资金

  1. Gilead Sciences
  2. Millennium Pharmaceuticals
  3. Pharmacyclics
  4. CSL Behring
  5. Teva Pharmaceuticals
  6. Novartis
  7. Janssen
  8. Onyx
  9. MRC [MR/K000608/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  10. Medical Research Council [MR/K000608/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bing-Neel syndrome (BNS) is a rare complication seen in patients with Waldenstrom macroglobulinaemia (WM), in which lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma cells colonize the central nervous system. In this retrospective multi-centre study, we present the clinicopathological features, imaging findings, therapy, response and outcomes of 34 patients with BNS. The median time from WM diagnosis to BNS diagnosis was 3years, 15% of patients were diagnosed with BNS at the time of WM diagnosis, and 22% of patients developed BNS when responding to active treatment for WM. Patients with BNS presented with variable clinical features including limb motor deficits, change in mental status and cranial nerve palsies. The diagnosis was made using a combination of cerebrospinal fluid cytology, flow cytometry and detection of the MYD88 L265 mutation, and magnetic resonance imaging. The estimated 3-year overall survival rate was 59%. Of the survivors, 40% have evidence of pathological and/or radiological persistence of disease. Age older than 65years, platelet count lower than 100x10(9)/l, and treatment for WM prior to BNS diagnosis were associated with worse outcome. Exposure to rituximab for treatment of BNS was associated with a better outcome. Multi-institutional collaboration is warranted to improve treatment and outcomes in patients with BNS.

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