4.3 Article

Blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm frequently shows occult central nervous system involvement at diagnosis and benefits from intrathecal therapy

期刊

ONCOTARGET
卷 7, 期 9, 页码 10174-10181

出版社

IMPACT JOURNALS LLC
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.7101

关键词

blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm; central nervous system; intrathecal prophylaxis; ALL therapy; flow cytometry

资金

  1. RETICS (Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad, Madrid, Spain) [RD06/0020/0035, RD12/0036/0048]
  2. RETICS (Fondos FEDER) [RD06/0020/0035, RD12/0036/0048]
  3. Junta de Castilla y Leon [EDU/878/2004]
  4. Fondo Social Europeo

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm (BPDCN) is a rare aggressive myeloid neoplasm which shows a high rate of central nervous system (CNS) recurrence and overall survival (OS) of <1 year. Despite this, screening for CNS involvement is not routinely performed at diagnosis and intrathecal (IT) prophylaxis is not regularly administered in BPDCN. Here, we prospectively evaluated 13 consecutive BPDCN patients for the presence of CNS involvement by flow cytometry. Despite none of the patients presented with neurological symptoms, occult CNS involvement was detected in 6/10 cases evaluated at diagnosis and 3/3 studied at relapse/progression. BPDCN patients evaluated at diagnosis received IT treatment -either CNS prophylaxis (n = 4) or active therapy (n = 6)-and all but one remain alive (median follow-up of 20 months). In contrast, all three patients assessed at relapse/progression died. The potential benefit of IT treatment administered early at diagnosis on OS and CNS recurrence-free survival of BPDCN was further confirmed in a retrospective cohort of another 23 BPDCN patients. Our results show that BPDCN patients studied at diagnosis frequently display occult CNS involvement; moreover, they also indicate that treatment of occult CNS disease might lead to a dramatically improved outcome of BPDCN.

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

4.3
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