PURPOSE: To compare mantle-cell lymphomas (MCLs) and follicle-center lymphomas (FCLs) for their features of clinical presentation, response to chemotherapy, and prognosis on the basis of a prospective randomized clinical trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with MCL and FCL who entered onto the prospective randomized comparison of cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (COP) versus prednimustine and mitoxantrone (PmM) followed by a second randomization for interferon (IFN) maintenance versus observation only. RESULTS:One hundred sixty-five of 234 patients had FCL and 45 of 234 patients had MCL. With FCL, both sexes were equally affected (men, 47%); patients with MCL were predominantly men (78%; P < .0004) and had a higher median age (64 v 53 years; P < .0001). Patients with MCL also had more widespread disease, reflected by the proportion of patients with two or greater extranodal manifestations (43% v 21%; P < .005) and nine or greater involved nodal areas (64% v 45%; nonsignificant [NS]). Response to chemotherapy was significantly lower in patients with MCL (complete remission [CR] + partial remission [PR], 69% v 88%; P < .05) and occurred at a slower pace. Patients with MCL also had a shorter event-free interval (median, 8 v 24 months; P < .0001) and overall survival (median, 28 v 77 months; P < .0001). In both subtypes, however, patients with less than two residual lymphoma manifestations in remission experienced a relatively good prognosis with an estimated 5-year survival of greater than 60% for MCL and greater than 75% for FCL. CONCLUSION: MCL and FCL differ substantially in their features of presentation, response to chemotherapy, and long-term prognosis. The extent of residual disease after completion of chemotherapy discriminates patients with different prognosis and may be used for the stratification of postremission strategies.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare mantle-cell lymphomas (MCLs) and follicle-center lymphomas (FCLs) for their features of clinical presentation, response to chemotherapy, and prognosis on the basis of a prospective randomized clinical trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with MCL and FCL who entered onto the prospective randomized comparison of cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (COP) versus prednimustine and mitoxantrone (PmM) followed by a second randomization for interferon (IFN) maintenance versus observation only. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-five of 234 patients had FCL and 45 of 234 patients had MCL. With FCL, both sexes were equally affected (men, 47%); patients with MCL were predominantly men (78%; P < .0004) and had a higher median age (64 v 53 years; P < .0001). Patients with MCL also had more widespread disease, reflected by the proportion of patients with two or greater extranodal manifestations (43% v 21%; P < .005) and nine or greater involved nodal areas (64% v 45%; nonsignificant [NS]). Response to chemotherapy was significantly lower in patients with MCL (complete remission [CR] + partial remission [PR], 69% v 88%; P < .05) and occurred at a slower pace. Patients with MCL also had a shorter event-free interval (median, 8 v 24 months; P < .0001) and overall survival (median, 28 v 77 months; P < .0001). In both subtypes, however, patients with less than two residual lymphoma manifestations in remission experienced a relatively good prognosis with an estimated 5-year survival of greater than 60% for MCL and greater than 75% for FCL. CONCLUSION:MCL and FCL differ substantially in their features of presentation, response to chemotherapy, and long-term prognosis. The extent of residual disease after completion of chemotherapy discriminates patients with different prognosis and may be used for the stratification of postremission strategies.
Authors: Lihua E Budde; Katherine A Guthrie; Brian G Till; Oliver W Press; Thomas R Chauncey; John M Pagel; Steven H Petersdorf; William I Bensinger; Leona A Holmberg; Andrei R Shustov; Damian J Green; David G Maloney; Ajay K Gopal Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-07-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Auayporn Nademanee; Stephen Forman; Arturo Molina; Henry Fung; David Smith; Andy Dagis; Cheuk Kwok; Dave Yamauchi; Anne-Line Anderson; Peter Falk; Amrita Krishnan; Mark Kirschbaum; Neil Kogut; Ryotaro Nakamura; Margaret O'donnell; Pablo Parker; Leslie Popplewell; Vinod Pullarkat; Roberto Rodriguez; Firoozeh Sahebi; Eileen Smith; David Snyder; Anthony Stein; Ricardo Spielberger; Jasmine Zain; Christine White; Andrew Raubitschek Journal: Blood Date: 2005-07-07 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Irene M Ghobrial; Daniel J McCormick; Scott H Kaufmann; Alexey A Leontovich; David A Loegering; Nga T Dai; Kelly L Krajnik; Mary J Stenson; Mona F Melhem; Anne J Novak; Stephen M Ansell; Thomas E Witzig Journal: Blood Date: 2005-01-13 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Rémy Gressin; Sylvie Caulet-Maugendre; Eric Deconinck; Olivier Tournilhac; Emmanuel Gyan; Marie Pierre Moles; Abderrazak El Yamani; Jerome Cornillon; Jean François Rossi; Steven Le Gouill; Gérard Lepeu; Ghandi Damaj; Philippe Solal Celigny; Hervé Maisonneuve; Bernadette Corront; Jean Pierre Vilque; Philippe Casassus; Thierry Lamy; Marc Colonna; Philippe Colombat Journal: Haematologica Date: 2010-03-10 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: T Maeda; Y Yamada; M Tawara; R Yamasaki; Y Yakata; C Tsutsumi; Y Onimaru; S Kamihira; M Tomonaga Journal: Int J Hematol Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 2.490
Authors: Christian H Geisler; Arne Kolstad; Anna Laurell; Niels S Andersen; Lone B Pedersen; Mats Jerkeman; Mikael Eriksson; Marie Nordström; Eva Kimby; Anne Marie Boesen; Outi Kuittinen; Grete F Lauritzsen; Herman Nilsson-Ehle; Elisabeth Ralfkiaer; Måns Akerman; Mats Ehinger; Christer Sundström; Ruth Langholm; Jan Delabie; Marja-Liisa Karjalainen-Lindsberg; Peter Brown; Erkki Elonen Journal: Blood Date: 2008-07-14 Impact factor: 22.113