| Literature DB >> 25662178 |
Hugo J A Adams1, John M H de Klerk, Rob Fijnheer, Ben G F Heggelman, Stefan V Dubois, Rutger A J Nievelstein, Thomas C Kwee.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the prognostic value of tumor-induced cortical bone destruction at computed tomography (CT) in newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25662178 PMCID: PMC4363520 DOI: 10.1007/s00256-015-2102-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Skeletal Radiol ISSN: 0364-2348 Impact factor: 2.199
Fig. 1Example of tumor-induced cortical destruction at CT in a 69-year-old woman with newly diagnosed DLBCL. Axial CT shows pathological densities in both iliac wings, indicating lymphomatous bone marrow involvement, and a focal disruption of the bony cortex (arrow)
Fig. 2Example of tumor-induced cortical destruction at CT in a 49-year-old man with newly diagnosed DLBCL. Axial CT shows focal destruction of the right fifth rib (arrow) with surrounding soft tissue mass
Characteristics of included patients
| Tumor-induced cortical destruction at CT | No tumor-induced cortical destruction at CT | |
|---|---|---|
| Patients (no.) | 8 | 97 |
| Age | ||
| Mean ± SD (years) | 68.4 ± 12.0 | 63.6 ± 13.9 |
| Median (years) | 68.5 | 65.0 |
| Range (years) | 49–83 | 24–87 |
| Male/Female | 3/5 | 54/43 |
| Positive/negative BMB | 3/5 | 16/81 |
| NCCN-IPI factors | ||
| Age | ||
| ≤40 years | 0 | 7 |
| >40 to ≤60 years | 2 | 27 |
| >60 to ≤75 years | 3 | 44 |
| >75 years | 3 | 19 |
| ECOG PS > 1 | 1 | 16 |
| LDH > ULN | ||
| ≤1 | 4 | 28 |
| >1 to ≤3 | 4 | 56 |
| >3 | 0 | 13 |
| Stage III/IV | 7 | 78 |
| Major extranodal involvement** | 6 | 46 |
| NCCN-IPI score | ||
| Low risk (0–1) | 0 | 8 |
| Low-intermediate risk (2–3) | 2 | 22 |
| High-intermediate risk (4–5) | 4 | 49 |
| High risk (≥6) | 2 | 18 |
| Follow-up time of surviving patients | ||
| Mean ± SD (days) | 647 ± 490 | 1,542 ± 914 |
| Median (days) | 511 | 1325 |
| Range (days) | 313–1,679 | 134–3,597 |
| Disease relapse or progression, or death (No.) | 1 | 36 |
| Death (No.) | 1 | 32 |
*For the purpose of this study, only histologically proven bone marrow involvement was used to define stage IV disease, as recommended by Zhou et al. [3]. Imaging-based bone marrow involvement only (i.e., the presence of tumor-induced cortical bone destruction at CT) was not used to define stage IV disease
**Defined as either bone marrow, central nervous system, liver/gastrointestinal tract or lung involvement, with histological confirmation of bone marrow and central nervous system involvement, as recommended by Zhou et al. [3]
BMB bone marrow biopsy, ECOG PS Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Score, LDH lactate dehydrogenase, NCCN-IPI National Comprehensive Cancer Network International Prognostic Index, SD standard deviation, ULN upper limit of normal (according to the local reference values of each participating institution)
Fig. 3Kaplan–Meier curves for PFS (a) and OS (b) of patients with tumor-induced cortical destruction at CT vs. patients without tumor-induced cortical destruction at CT. Patients with tumor-induced cortical destruction at CT had no significantly different PFS and OS than those without (log-rank test, p = 0.341 and p = 0.554, respectively)
Fig. 4Kaplan–Meier curves for PFS (a) and OS (b) of patients with negative BMB vs. those with positive BMB. Patients with a positive BMB had significantly worse PFS and OS than those with a negative BMB (log-rank test, p = 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively)
Fig. 5Kaplan–Meier curves for PFS (a) and OS (b) of patients with low risk NCCN-IPI scores vs. high-risk NCCN-IPI scores. Patients with high-risk NCCN-IPI scores had significantly worse PFS and OS than those with low risk NCCN-IPI scores (log-rank test, p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively)
Cox regression analysis of PFS
| Characteristic | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hazard ratio | 95 % CI |
| Hazard ratio | 95 % CI |
| |
| Tumor-induced cortical destruction at CT vs. no tumor-induced cortical destruction at CT | 0.393 | 0.054–2.854 | 0.358 | – | – | – |
| BMB positive vs. BMB negative | 3.013 | 1.501–6.048 | 0.002 | – | – | – |
| NCCN-IPI high risk vs. NCCN-IPI low risk | 21.774 | 3.000–158.078 | 0.002 | 21.774 | 3.000–158.078 | 0.002 |
Cox regression analysis of OS
| Characteristic | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hazard ratio | 95 % CI |
| Hazard ratio | 95 % CI |
| |
| Tumor-induced cortical destruction at CT vs. no tumor-induced cortical destruction at CT | 0.551 | 0.075–4.033 | 0.559 | – | – | – |
| BMB positive vs. BMB negative | 2.588 | 1.229–5.448 | 0.013 | – | – | – |
| NCCN-IPI high risk vs. NCCN-IPI low risk | 20.186 | 2.768–147.191 | 0.003 | 20.186 | 2.768–147.191 | 0.003 |