4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Limited-stage mantle-cell lymphoma

期刊

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
卷 14, 期 10, 页码 1555-1561

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdg414

关键词

chemotherapy; limited-stage mantle-cell lymphoma; non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; radiation therapy

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Mantle-cell lymphoma (MCL) is known to have a poor outcome, however, most patients present with advanced-stage disease. Little information is available on limited-stage MCL. Patients and methods: we retrospectively reviewed clinicopathological information on all patients with limited-stage MCL seen at the British Columbia Cancer Agency since 1984. Results: Twenty-six patients had low bulk (< 10 cm) stage IA (12 patients) or IIA (14 patients) MCL. Initial therapy was involved-field radiation therapy (RT) with or without chemotherapy (CT), 17 patients; CT alone or observation, nine patients. Fifteen patients are alive at a median follow-up of 72 months (range 14-194). Progression-free survival (PFS) at 2 and 5 years was 65% and 46%, and overall survival (OS) 86% and 70%. respectively. Five patients surviving beyond 8 years. Only age and initial use of RT significantly affected PFS. Five-year PFS for patients <60 years of age was 83%, compared with 39% for those aged greater than or equal to60 years, P = 0.04. Patients receiving RT with or without CT (n = 17), had a 5-year PFS of 68%. compared with 11% for those not receiving RT (n = 9, P = 0.002). Receiving RT eliminated the impact of age on PFS (with RT the 5-year PFS was 83% for those aged <60 years and 57% for those ≥60 years, P = 0.17). Although OS for the whole group was 53% at 6 years, it was 71% for those initially treated with RT, but only 25% for those not given RT (P = 0. 13). Conclusion: in our experience, patients with limited-stage MCL had an improved PFS when treated with regimens including RT, with a trend towards improved OS. These results suggest a potentially important role for RT in limited-stage MCL.

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

4.7
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