Cancer · 2021
Surveillance imaging during first remission in follicular lymphoma does not impact overall survival.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Goldman Max L, Mao Jimmy J, Strouse Christopher S, Chen Wanqi, Rupji Manali, Chen Zhengjia, Maurer Matthew J, Calzada Oscar, Churnetski Michael, Flowers Christopher R, Cerhan James R, Link Brian K, Thompson Carrie A, Cohen Jonathon B
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Although many patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) undergo routine radiographic surveillance during their first remission, no consensus exists on the modality, duration, frequency, or need for routine imaging studies. The authors retrospectively examined the effect of surveillance imaging on relapse detection and overall survival (OS) in patients with FL.
METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed FL who had a response to induction therapy were identified from the Lymphoid Malignancies Enterprise Architecture Database (LEAD) at Emory University and from the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic. Patients were evaluated for both relapse and method of relapse detection (ie, clinical concerns vs radiologic detection through surveillance imaging in an asymptomatic patient).
RESULTS: Of 148 patients in the LEAD cohort, 55 (37%) relapsed, and the majority (n = 35; 64%) of relapses were detected clinically. In the MER cohort, 63 of 177 relapses (54%) were detected clinically. There was no significant difference in OS from the date of diagnosis between the 2 methods of relapse detection in the LEAD (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.13-2.94; P = .54) and MER (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.47-2.21; P = .96) cohorts. Similarly, there was no significant difference in OS from the date of relapse between the 2 methods of relapse detection in the LEAD (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.10-2.27; P = .35) and MER (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.47-2.21; P = .96) cohorts.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest a limited role for routine surveillance imaging in patients with FL who complete front-line therapy. Future studies should evaluate which patients may benefit from a more aggressive surveillance approach and should explore novel methods of relapse detection.
METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed FL who had a response to induction therapy were identified from the Lymphoid Malignancies Enterprise Architecture Database (LEAD) at Emory University and from the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) of the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic. Patients were evaluated for both relapse and method of relapse detection (ie, clinical concerns vs radiologic detection through surveillance imaging in an asymptomatic patient).
RESULTS: Of 148 patients in the LEAD cohort, 55 (37%) relapsed, and the majority (n = 35; 64%) of relapses were detected clinically. In the MER cohort, 63 of 177 relapses (54%) were detected clinically. There was no significant difference in OS from the date of diagnosis between the 2 methods of relapse detection in the LEAD (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.13-2.94; P = .54) and MER (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.47-2.21; P = .96) cohorts. Similarly, there was no significant difference in OS from the date of relapse between the 2 methods of relapse detection in the LEAD (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.10-2.27; P = .35) and MER (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.47-2.21; P = .96) cohorts.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest a limited role for routine surveillance imaging in patients with FL who complete front-line therapy. Future studies should evaluate which patients may benefit from a more aggressive surveillance approach and should explore novel methods of relapse detection.