Cancers · 2024
The Value of Bone Marrow Assessment by FDG PET/CT, Biopsy and Aspirate in the Upfront Evaluation of Mantle Cell Lymphoma: A Nationwide Cohort Study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ródenas Quiñonero Isabel, Marco-Ayala Javier, Chen-Liang Tzu-Hua, de la Cruz-Vicente Fátima, Baumann Tycho, Navarro José-Tomás, Martín García-Sancho Alejandro, Martin-Santos Taida, López-Jiménez Javier, Andreu Rafael, Parra-Virto Esther, Usas Andrea, Alonso David, Fernández-González Marta, Palomo Rumschisky Pablo, Frutos Laura, Navarro José Luis, Alvarez-Perez Rosa María, Sarandeses Pilar, Cortes Montserrat, Tamayo Pilar, Uña Jon, Martínez-Lorca Alberto, Ruiz Cristina, Lozano María Luisa, Ortuño Francisco José
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Assessment of bone marrow infiltration (BMI) is part of the initial staging of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), although BMI evaluated by biopsy (BMB) is not considered significant in the MIPI scales, and standardized recommendations remain lacking.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the accuracy and prognostic impact of BMI assessed by PET/CT and BMB in a large series of MCL patients.
METHODS: We deconstructed the IPI-NCCN, MIPI, and MIPI-c indices and considered BMI as positive if indicated by a BMB, PET/CT scan, or a combination of both.
RESULTS: In the total cohort (n = 148), 110 patients had BMI detected by BMB and 33 by PET/CT. The sensitivity of BMB was higher than that of PET/CT (94.8% vs. 28.4%), as were its negative predictive value (84.2% vs. 27.8%) and accuracy (95.9% vs. 43.9%). In the total cohort, BMI detected by PET/CT showed a significant predictive value for PFS (p = 0.027), while BMB demonstrated independent prognostic value only in combination with PET/CT (p = 0.025). Among intensively treated patients (n = 128), PET/CT had significant clinical impact on PFS (p = 0.030), and when combined with BMB, it provided independent prognostic value for both PFS and OS (p = 0.026 and p = 0.033, respectively). Based on these findings, we propose a prognostic model (MCL-PET-I) that incorporates BMI by PET/CT, allowing for the identification of three groups with distinct clinical outcomes (p < 0.0001 for PFS and p = 0.00025 for OS).
CONCLUSIONS: In the upfront work of MCL, PET/CT-based BMI has greater prognostic impact, while BMB remains essential for staging. We propose the MCL-PET-I prognostic index, which effectively differentiates between clinical risk groups.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the accuracy and prognostic impact of BMI assessed by PET/CT and BMB in a large series of MCL patients.
METHODS: We deconstructed the IPI-NCCN, MIPI, and MIPI-c indices and considered BMI as positive if indicated by a BMB, PET/CT scan, or a combination of both.
RESULTS: In the total cohort (n = 148), 110 patients had BMI detected by BMB and 33 by PET/CT. The sensitivity of BMB was higher than that of PET/CT (94.8% vs. 28.4%), as were its negative predictive value (84.2% vs. 27.8%) and accuracy (95.9% vs. 43.9%). In the total cohort, BMI detected by PET/CT showed a significant predictive value for PFS (p = 0.027), while BMB demonstrated independent prognostic value only in combination with PET/CT (p = 0.025). Among intensively treated patients (n = 128), PET/CT had significant clinical impact on PFS (p = 0.030), and when combined with BMB, it provided independent prognostic value for both PFS and OS (p = 0.026 and p = 0.033, respectively). Based on these findings, we propose a prognostic model (MCL-PET-I) that incorporates BMI by PET/CT, allowing for the identification of three groups with distinct clinical outcomes (p < 0.0001 for PFS and p = 0.00025 for OS).
CONCLUSIONS: In the upfront work of MCL, PET/CT-based BMI has greater prognostic impact, while BMB remains essential for staging. We propose the MCL-PET-I prognostic index, which effectively differentiates between clinical risk groups.