4.3 Article

Intrathecal chemotherapy alone is inadequate central nervous system prophylaxis in patients with intermediate-grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma

期刊

LEUKEMIA & LYMPHOMA
卷 43, 期 9, 页码 1783-1788

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/1042819021000006475

关键词

non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; CNS prophylaxis; intrathecal chemotherapy; international prognostic index score

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Central nervous system (CNS) relapse of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NUL) is usually fatal despite therapy and effective prophylaxis is desirable. Patients at high-risk usually receive intrathecal (IT) prophylaxis, although its efficacy is unproven. We therefore analyzed the outcome of all patients with newly diagnosed intermediate-grade NHL receiving IT prophylaxis from 1991 to 1999. Twenty-six patients were identified and analyzed. All were free of CNS involvement at diagnosis with negative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) cytology. Disease stage was IE in 7, and IV in 19, with a median of two extranodal sites involved. Serum lactate dehydrogenase was elevated in 65%, and the median International Prognostic Factors Index score was 3 (range 0-5). Anthracycline-based chemotherapy was used in all cases and included high-dose methotrexate +/- ara-C in six patients. The median number of IT treatments was 5 (range 1-12) and comprised methotrexate +/- steroid in 15, together with ara-C in 11. The actuarial 3-year CNS-relapse rate was 26 +/- 10%. Six CNS-relapses were observed and involved the spinal cord or brain parenchyma in two cases each, and the leptomeninges in four patients. Treatment-related variables associated with higher CNS-relapse rates (34-50%) were: delay of greater than or equal to 14 days from diagnosis to first IT injection, < 5 IT treatments, delay of IT prophylaxis until after attaining CR and systemic treatment lacking high-dose methotrexate +/- ara-C (each P less than or equal to 0.17). IT CNS prophylaxis, as used here, was inadequate. Alternative approaches should be pursued.

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