Kirsten M Boughan1,2, Paolo F Caimi3,4. 1. Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cleveland, OH, USA. 2. Adult Hematologic Malignancies and Stem Cell Transplant, Division of Hematology and Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Cleveland, OH, USA. 3. Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cleveland, OH, USA. paolo.caimi@case.edu. 4. Adult Hematologic Malignancies and Stem Cell Transplant, Division of Hematology and Oncology, University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center, Cleveland, OH, USA. paolo.caimi@case.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Follicular lymphoma is a diverse disease, with a diverse variable biology, clinical presentation, and prognosis. The identification of factors that can predict the specific outcome of follicular lymphoma patients remains an area of need. Here, we review the significant advances made in follicular lymphoma prognosis in the last two decades, particularly with the advent of new genetic models. RECENT FINDINGS: Tumor burden remains an important predictor of prognosis and is still a standard upon which treatment initiation decisions are made. Clinical prognostic indices, including the follicular lymphoma international prognostic index (FLIPI) and FLIPI-2, are validated to predict overall survival and progression-free survival, respectively. However, clinical decisions are rarely made based on these and other indices. Recently described molecular abnormalities in follicular lymphoma include those involving epigenetic regulation, cell-surface receptor signaling, and those controlling the interactions of the follicular lymphoma cell with the microenvironment. Clinicogenetic indices, such as the m7-FLIPI, take into account molecular information and provide a more accurate prognostic prediction than clinical indices. Significant advances have been made in the development of predictive models of risk in follicular lymphoma, in particular with the incorporation of genetic information to predict risk. New models are capable of identifying groups of patients at highest risk of progression. However, it is not yet possible to predict the specific clinical course of a particular patient based on baseline factors. Continued research is needed to identify patients at highest risk of failing initial therapy and the therapeutic approaches to improve their outcomes.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Follicular lymphoma is a diverse disease, with a diverse variable biology, clinical presentation, and prognosis. The identification of factors that can predict the specific outcome of follicular lymphomapatients remains an area of need. Here, we review the significant advances made in follicular lymphoma prognosis in the last two decades, particularly with the advent of new genetic models. RECENT FINDINGS: Tumor burden remains an important predictor of prognosis and is still a standard upon which treatment initiation decisions are made. Clinical prognostic indices, including the follicular lymphoma international prognostic index (FLIPI) and FLIPI-2, are validated to predict overall survival and progression-free survival, respectively. However, clinical decisions are rarely made based on these and other indices. Recently described molecular abnormalities in follicular lymphoma include those involving epigenetic regulation, cell-surface receptor signaling, and those controlling the interactions of the follicular lymphoma cell with the microenvironment. Clinicogenetic indices, such as the m7-FLIPI, take into account molecular information and provide a more accurate prognostic prediction than clinical indices. Significant advances have been made in the development of predictive models of risk in follicular lymphoma, in particular with the incorporation of genetic information to predict risk. New models are capable of identifying groups of patients at highest risk of progression. However, it is not yet possible to predict the specific clinical course of a particular patient based on baseline factors. Continued research is needed to identify patients at highest risk of failing initial therapy and the therapeutic approaches to improve their outcomes.
Authors: Richard J Byers; Ebrahim Sakhinia; Preethi Joseph; Caroline Glennie; Judith A Hoyland; Lia P Menasce; John A Radford; Timothy Illidge Journal: Blood Date: 2008-01-03 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Catherine M Radcliffe; James N Arnold; David M Suter; Mark R Wormald; David J Harvey; Louise Royle; Yusuke Mimura; Yoshinobu Kimura; Robert B Sim; Susana Inogès; Mercedes Rodriguez-Calvillo; Natalia Zabalegui; Ascensión López-Díaz de Cerio; Kathleen N Potter; C Ian Mockridge; Raymond A Dwek; Maurizio Bendandi; Pauline M Rudd; Freda K Stevenson Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2006-12-29 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Heiko Schöder; Ariela Noy; Mithat Gönen; Lijun Weng; David Green; Yusuf E Erdi; Steven M Larson; Henry W D Yeung Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-04-18 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: German Ott; Tiemo Katzenberger; Andreas Lohr; Steffi Kindelberger; Thomas Rüdiger; Martin Wilhelm; Jörg Kalla; Andreas Rosenwald; Justus G Müller; M Michaela Ott; Hans Konrad Müller-Hermelink Journal: Blood Date: 2002-05-15 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Beverly A Guadagnolo; Sigui Li; Donna Neuberg; Andrea Ng; Ling Hua; Barbara Silver; Mary Ann Stevenson; Peter Mauch Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-10-21 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Christian Buske; Eva Hoster; Martin Dreyling; Joerg Hasford; Michael Unterhalt; Wolfgang Hiddemann Journal: Blood Date: 2006-05-11 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Philippe Solal-Céligny; Pascal Roy; Philippe Colombat; Josephine White; Jim O Armitage; Reyes Arranz-Saez; Wing Y Au; Monica Bellei; Pauline Brice; Dolores Caballero; Bertrand Coiffier; Eulogio Conde-Garcia; Chantal Doyen; Massimo Federico; Richard I Fisher; Javier F Garcia-Conde; Cesare Guglielmi; Anton Hagenbeek; Corinne Haïoun; Michael LeBlanc; Andrew T Lister; Armando Lopez-Guillermo; Peter McLaughlin; Noël Milpied; Pierre Morel; Nicolas Mounier; Stephen J Proctor; Ama Rohatiner; Paul Smith; Pierre Soubeyran; Hervé Tilly; Umberto Vitolo; Pier-Luigi Zinzani; Emanuele Zucca; Emili Montserrat Journal: Blood Date: 2004-05-04 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Sandeep S Dave; George Wright; Bruce Tan; Andreas Rosenwald; Randy D Gascoyne; Wing C Chan; Richard I Fisher; Rita M Braziel; Lisa M Rimsza; Thomas M Grogan; Thomas P Miller; Michael LeBlanc; Timothy C Greiner; Dennis D Weisenburger; James C Lynch; Julie Vose; James O Armitage; Erlend B Smeland; Stein Kvaloy; Harald Holte; Jan Delabie; Joseph M Connors; Peter M Lansdorp; Qin Ouyang; T Andrew Lister; Andrew J Davies; Andrew J Norton; H Konrad Muller-Hermelink; German Ott; Elias Campo; Emilio Montserrat; Wyndham H Wilson; Elaine S Jaffe; Richard Simon; Liming Yang; John Powell; Hong Zhao; Neta Goldschmidt; Michael Chiorazzi; Louis M Staudt Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-11-18 Impact factor: 91.245