BACKGROUND: In marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), clinical and follow-up data on large cohorts of patients are difficult to obtain. The objective of this single-center, retrospective analysis of a large cohort of 144 patients with MZL was to elucidate the role of prognostic markers, treatments, and outcomes in this disease. METHODS: In total, 144 patients were identified who were diagnosed with MZL at the authors' institution between 2003 and 2010. Data on clinical parameters, treatments, response, and survival were analyzed. In addition, the validity of the International Prognostic Index (IPI) and Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) prognostic scores were tested in patients with MZL. RESULTS: Among 144 patients with MZL, 96 patients (67%) had extralymph node (extranodal) MZL, 32 patients (22%) had lymph node (nodal) MZL, and 16 patients (11%) had splenic MZL. The 5-year progression-free survival rate was 82% in the nodal MZL group, 88% in the extranodal MZL group, and 74% in the splenic MZL group and did not different between the 3 groups (P = .60). The 5-year overall survival rate was excellent in all 3 MZL groups (nodal MZL, 89%; extranodal MZL, 92%; splenic MZL, 82%; P = .46). In our cohort, the FLIPI score was a significant prognostic marker: The 5-year progression-free survival rate for patients who had FLIPI scores of 0 to 2 (low or intermediate risk) was excellent at 92%, whereas it was only 62% for patients who had FLIPI scores of 3 to 5 (poor risk; P = .003). Similarly, the 5-year overall survival rate for patients who had FLIPI scores of 0 to 2 was 95%, whereas it was only 62% for patients who had FLIPI scores of 3 to 5 (P = .0009). CONCLUSIONS: The FLIPI score had strong prognostic value in patients with MZL. Patients who have low-risk or intermediate-risk FLIPI scores have an excellent prognosis, whereas patients with poor-risk FLIPI scores are candidates for novel treatment approaches.
BACKGROUND: In marginal zone lymphoma (MZL), clinical and follow-up data on large cohorts of patients are difficult to obtain. The objective of this single-center, retrospective analysis of a large cohort of 144 patients with MZL was to elucidate the role of prognostic markers, treatments, and outcomes in this disease. METHODS: In total, 144 patients were identified who were diagnosed with MZL at the authors' institution between 2003 and 2010. Data on clinical parameters, treatments, response, and survival were analyzed. In addition, the validity of the International Prognostic Index (IPI) and Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) prognostic scores were tested in patients with MZL. RESULTS: Among 144 patients with MZL, 96 patients (67%) had extralymph node (extranodal) MZL, 32 patients (22%) had lymph node (nodal) MZL, and 16 patients (11%) had splenic MZL. The 5-year progression-free survival rate was 82% in the nodal MZL group, 88% in the extranodal MZL group, and 74% in the splenic MZL group and did not different between the 3 groups (P = .60). The 5-year overall survival rate was excellent in all 3 MZL groups (nodal MZL, 89%; extranodal MZL, 92%; splenic MZL, 82%; P = .46). In our cohort, the FLIPI score was a significant prognostic marker: The 5-year progression-free survival rate for patients who had FLIPI scores of 0 to 2 (low or intermediate risk) was excellent at 92%, whereas it was only 62% for patients who had FLIPI scores of 3 to 5 (poor risk; P = .003). Similarly, the 5-year overall survival rate for patients who had FLIPI scores of 0 to 2 was 95%, whereas it was only 62% for patients who had FLIPI scores of 3 to 5 (P = .0009). CONCLUSIONS: The FLIPI score had strong prognostic value in patients with MZL. Patients who have low-risk or intermediate-risk FLIPI scores have an excellent prognosis, whereas patients with poor-risk FLIPI scores are candidates for novel treatment approaches.
Authors: Sean I Tracy; Melissa C Larson; Andrew L Feldman; Matthew J Maurer; Anne J Novak; Susan L Slager; Jose C Villasboas; Cristine Allmer; Thomas M Habermann; Umar Farooq; Sergei Syrbu; James R Cerhan; Brian K Link Journal: Am J Hematol Date: 2019-04-10 Impact factor: 10.047