Adalgisa Condoluci1,2, Davide Rossi1,2, Emanuele Zucca1,2, Franco Cavalli3. 1. Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland, Bellinzona, Switzerland. 2. Institute of Oncology Research (IOR), Via Vela 6, 6500, Bellinzona, Switzerland. 3. Institute of Oncology Research (IOR), Via Vela 6, 6500, Bellinzona, Switzerland. franco.cavalli@eoc.ch.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) prognosis is strictly related to the characteristics of the disease, which can range from very indolent cases to highly aggressive and refractory ones. Here we will review the current knowledge on MCL biomarkers. RECENT FINDINGS: Biomarker-informed diagnosis is essential for differentiating MCL from other mature B cell tumors. Diagnosis of MCL relies on the identification of the t(11;14) translocation by FISH or the consequently aberrant expression of cyclin D1 by immunohistochemistry. For the few cases staining negative for cyclin D1, SOX11 may help to define the diagnosis. Prognostic biomarkers have been proposed to stratify MCL patients, including baseline clinical aspects (leukemic non-nodal presentation, in situ presentation, Mantle cell International Prognostic Index-MIPI), pathological aspects (blastoid morphology, Ki-67 proliferation index, SOX11 expression), genetic aspects (immunoglobulin gene mutation status, TP53 deletion or mutation, CDKN2A deletion), and depth of response after treatment (PET imaging, molecular minimal residual disease). Such tools are increasingly used as a guide for therapeutic decisions. Watchful waiting approach is recommended for patients harboring favorable clinico-biological features, such as leukemic non-nodal presentation, low MIPI score, non-blastoid disease, low Ki-67 proliferation rate, mutated immunoglobulin genes, and the lack of SOX11 expression. For patients in need of frontline therapy, the decision of whether to undertake intensive regimens is based upon patient's age and comorbidities. Central nervous system prophylaxis is recommended for cases showing blastoid morphology. The duration of remission is tightly correlated to the depth of response. With the aim of achieving a longer duration of remission and survival, younger patients may pursue more intensive regimens incorporating high-dose cytarabine, followed by myeloablative consolidation chemotherapy, autologous stem cell transplantation, and rituximab maintenance. Older patients could, on the other hand, benefit from lower intensity immunochemotherapy followed or not by a maintenance therapy depending on which frontline regimen is used. Despite the identification of several potential useful biomarkers that may inform the treatment decisions and the design of clinical trials, the treatment choice remains nowadays determined by the patient age and fitness rather than by the individual patient characteristics. Tailoring therapy toward a risk-adapted strategy to accommodate the wide spectrum of disease is an urgent challenge, and clinical trials may explore the feasibility of a biomarker-defined therapeutic policy.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) prognosis is strictly related to the characteristics of the disease, which can range from very indolent cases to highly aggressive and refractory ones. Here we will review the current knowledge on MCL biomarkers. RECENT FINDINGS: Biomarker-informed diagnosis is essential for differentiating MCL from other mature B cell tumors. Diagnosis of MCL relies on the identification of the t(11;14) translocation by FISH or the consequently aberrant expression of cyclin D1 by immunohistochemistry. For the few cases staining negative for cyclin D1, SOX11 may help to define the diagnosis. Prognostic biomarkers have been proposed to stratify MCLpatients, including baseline clinical aspects (leukemic non-nodal presentation, in situ presentation, Mantle cell International Prognostic Index-MIPI), pathological aspects (blastoid morphology, Ki-67 proliferation index, SOX11 expression), genetic aspects (immunoglobulin gene mutation status, TP53 deletion or mutation, CDKN2A deletion), and depth of response after treatment (PET imaging, molecular minimal residual disease). Such tools are increasingly used as a guide for therapeutic decisions. Watchful waiting approach is recommended for patients harboring favorable clinico-biological features, such as leukemic non-nodal presentation, low MIPI score, non-blastoid disease, low Ki-67 proliferation rate, mutated immunoglobulin genes, and the lack of SOX11 expression. For patients in need of frontline therapy, the decision of whether to undertake intensive regimens is based upon patient's age and comorbidities. Central nervous system prophylaxis is recommended for cases showing blastoid morphology. The duration of remission is tightly correlated to the depth of response. With the aim of achieving a longer duration of remission and survival, younger patients may pursue more intensive regimens incorporating high-dose cytarabine, followed by myeloablative consolidation chemotherapy, autologous stem cell transplantation, and rituximab maintenance. Older patients could, on the other hand, benefit from lower intensity immunochemotherapy followed or not by a maintenance therapy depending on which frontline regimen is used. Despite the identification of several potential useful biomarkers that may inform the treatment decisions and the design of clinical trials, the treatment choice remains nowadays determined by the patient age and fitness rather than by the individual patient characteristics. Tailoring therapy toward a risk-adapted strategy to accommodate the wide spectrum of disease is an urgent challenge, and clinical trials may explore the feasibility of a biomarker-defined therapeutic policy.
Authors: Eva Hoster; Wolfram Klapper; Olivier Hermine; Hanneke C Kluin-Nelemans; Jan Walewski; Achiel van Hoof; Marek Trneny; Christian H Geisler; Francesco Di Raimondo; Michal Szymczyk; Stephan Stilgenbauer; Catherine Thieblemont; Michael Hallek; Roswitha Forstpointner; Christiane Pott; Vincent Ribrag; Jeanette Doorduijn; Wolfgang Hiddemann; Martin H Dreyling; Michael Unterhalt Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-03-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: F Pozzo; T Bittolo; F Arruga; P Bulian; P Macor; E Tissino; B Gizdic; F M Rossi; R Bomben; A Zucchetto; D Benedetti; M Degan; G D'Arena; A Chiarenza; F Zaja; G Pozzato; D Rossi; G Gaidano; G Del Poeta; S Deaglio; V Gattei; M Dal Bo Journal: Leukemia Date: 2015-07-13 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: Xose S Puente; Magda Pinyol; Víctor Quesada; Laura Conde; Gonzalo R Ordóñez; Neus Villamor; Georgia Escaramis; Pedro Jares; Sílvia Beà; Marcos González-Díaz; Laia Bassaganyas; Tycho Baumann; Manel Juan; Mónica López-Guerra; Dolors Colomer; José M C Tubío; Cristina López; Alba Navarro; Cristian Tornador; Marta Aymerich; María Rozman; Jesús M Hernández; Diana A Puente; José M P Freije; Gloria Velasco; Ana Gutiérrez-Fernández; Dolors Costa; Anna Carrió; Sara Guijarro; Anna Enjuanes; Lluís Hernández; Jordi Yagüe; Pilar Nicolás; Carlos M Romeo-Casabona; Heinz Himmelbauer; Ester Castillo; Juliane C Dohm; Silvia de Sanjosé; Miguel A Piris; Enrique de Alava; Jesús San Miguel; Romina Royo; Josep L Gelpí; David Torrents; Modesto Orozco; David G Pisano; Alfonso Valencia; Roderic Guigó; Mónica Bayés; Simon Heath; Marta Gut; Peter Klatt; John Marshall; Keiran Raine; Lucy A Stebbings; P Andrew Futreal; Michael R Stratton; Peter J Campbell; Ivo Gut; Armando López-Guillermo; Xavier Estivill; Emili Montserrat; Carlos López-Otín; Elías Campo Journal: Nature Date: 2011-06-05 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Pedro Farinha; Hamid Masoudi; Brian F Skinnider; Karey Shumansky; John J Spinelli; Karamjit Gill; Richard Klasa; Nicolas Voss; Joseph M Connors; Randy D Gascoyne Journal: Blood Date: 2005-06-02 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Simon Husby; Ulrik Ralfkiaer; Christian Garde; Roza Zandi; Sara Ek; Arne Kolstad; Mats Jerkeman; Anna Laurell; Riikka Räty; Lone B Pedersen; Anja Pedersen; Mats Ehinger; Christer Sundström; Marja-Liisa Karjalainen-Lindsberg; Jan Delabie; Erik Clasen-Linde; Peter Brown; Jack B Cowland; Christopher T Workman; Christian H Geisler; Kirsten Grønbæk Journal: Blood Date: 2015-03-03 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Maria Carmela Vegliante; Jara Palomero; Patricia Pérez-Galán; Gaël Roué; Giancarlo Castellano; Alba Navarro; Guillem Clot; Alexandra Moros; Helena Suárez-Cisneros; Sílvia Beà; Luis Hernández; Anna Enjuanes; Pedro Jares; Neus Villamor; Dolors Colomer; José Ignacio Martín-Subero; Elias Campo; Virginia Amador Journal: Blood Date: 2013-01-15 Impact factor: 22.113