BACKGROUND: The impact of active surveillance, comprising annual computed tomography scanning and bone marrow biopsies, in the follow-up of patients after high-dose therapy with autologous stem cell rescue for recurrent follicular lymphoma was analyzed. DESIGN AND METHODS: Seventy-one of 99 patients who received high-dose therapy commenced the surveillance program. Response duration, time to next treatment and overall survival were compared according to whether disease progression had been diagnosed on the basis of surveillance investigations or on clinical grounds. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 16 years, progression was documented by surveillance in 16 patients and clinically in 18, the median response duration being 2.4 and 2.3 years, respectively (P=NS). Ten patients with a relapse detected clinically started treatment immediately, contrasting with one patient whose relapse was detected by surveillance investigations. Five patients with relapses detected by surveillance investigations have not required treatment after a median follow-up of 18 years, whereas all but two patients with a relapse detected clinically have been treated. The median time to next treatment was 7 years for patients with a relapse identified by surveillance investigations and 4 years for those whose relapse was manifested clinically (P=0.03). Overall survival was not significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Surveillance investigations, consisting of annual computed tomography scanning and bone marrow biopsies, have no impact on the management of patients with recurrent follicular lymphoma and do not improve the outcome of these patients.
BACKGROUND: The impact of active surveillance, comprising annual computed tomography scanning and bone marrow biopsies, in the follow-up of patients after high-dose therapy with autologous stem cell rescue for recurrent follicular lymphoma was analyzed. DESIGN AND METHODS: Seventy-one of 99 patients who received high-dose therapy commenced the surveillance program. Response duration, time to next treatment and overall survival were compared according to whether disease progression had been diagnosed on the basis of surveillance investigations or on clinical grounds. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 16 years, progression was documented by surveillance in 16 patients and clinically in 18, the median response duration being 2.4 and 2.3 years, respectively (P=NS). Ten patients with a relapse detected clinically started treatment immediately, contrasting with one patient whose relapse was detected by surveillance investigations. Five patients with relapses detected by surveillance investigations have not required treatment after a median follow-up of 18 years, whereas all but two patients with a relapse detected clinically have been treated. The median time to next treatment was 7 years for patients with a relapse identified by surveillance investigations and 4 years for those whose relapse was manifested clinically (P=0.03). Overall survival was not significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Surveillance investigations, consisting of annual computed tomography scanning and bone marrow biopsies, have no impact on the management of patients with recurrent follicular lymphoma and do not improve the outcome of these patients.
Authors: J Apostolidis; R K Gupta; D Grenzelias; P W Johnson; V I Pappa; K E Summers; A Salam; K Adams; A J Norton; J A Amess; J Matthews; M Bradburn; T A Lister; A Z Rohatiner Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: P Brice; Y Bastion; E Lepage; N Brousse; C Haïoun; P Moreau; N Straetmans; H Tilly; I Tabah; P Solal-Céligny Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1997-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Silvia Montoto; Andrew John Davies; Janet Matthews; Maria Calaminici; Andrew J Norton; John Amess; Sarah Vinnicombe; Rachel Waters; Ama Z S Rohatiner; T Andrew Lister Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-05-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: K M Ardeshna; P Smith; A Norton; B W Hancock; P J Hoskin; K A MacLennan; R E Marcus; A Jelliffe; G Vaughan; D C Linch Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-08-16 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Jessica Hunn; Meaghan E Tenney; Ana I Tergas; Erin A Bishop; Kathleen Moore; William Watkin; Carolyn Kirschner; Jean Hurteau; Gustavo C Rodriguez; Ernst Lengyel; Nita K Lee; S Diane Yamada Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2015-03-30 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Ajay K Gopal; Robert Chen; Scott E Smith; Stephen M Ansell; Joseph D Rosenblatt; Kerry J Savage; Joseph M Connors; Andreas Engert; Emily K Larsen; Xuedong Chi; Eric L Sievers; Anas Younes Journal: Blood Date: 2014-12-22 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Silvia Montoto; Janet Matthews; Paul Greaves; Debra Lillington; Deborah Anderson; John G Gribben; T Andrew Lister Journal: Haematologica Date: 2012-11-09 Impact factor: 9.941