Limited-stage Mantle Cell Lymphoma: Real-world outcomes according to nodal vs. extranodal presentation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) treatment has evolved significantly in recent years, with a paradigm shift from traditional chemotherapy-based regimens to targeted therapies and chemo-free combinations. Despite these advances, optimal management strategies for limited-stage (Ann Arbor stage I or II) MCL remain undefined due to limited data. We previously reported outcomes in early-stage MCL, primarily from the pre-rituximab era (Bernard et al., 2013). The present study aims to evaluate clinical characteristics and describe treatment patterns and outcomes in the modern therapeutic context. Methods We conducted a retrospective review of adult patients (≥18 years) diagnosed with stage I–II MCL between January 1, 2003, and October 1, 2024, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre. Patients were identified through the institutional Cancer Registry. Disease presentation was categorized as nodal or extranodal (with or without regional nodal involvement). Treatment modalities were grouped into radiotherapy (RT) alone or chemotherapy-based regimens, which could include RT and/or autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, the Kaplan-Meier method, and Cox proportional hazards modeling. Results During the study period, 421 patients were newly diagnosed with MCL, of whom 36 (8.6%) had limited-stage disease (15 stage I, 21 stage II). Eight were staged with PET and the remainder with CT. The median age was 64 years (range 39-91), and 64% were aged ≥60. Treatment regimens included RT alone (28%), chemotherapy plus RT (44%), chemotherapy followed by ASCT (17%), and chemotherapy alone (11%). RT was applied at a median of 30 Gy. Seventeen patients had nodal disease, and 19 had primary extranodal involvement, all located in the head and neck region—oral cavity (63%), nasopharynx (26%), and orbit (11%). With a median follow-up of 72.5 months (range, 4.0–257.0), 13 patients experienced disease progression—10 in the nodal group and 3 in the extranodal group. Progression was significantly more frequent in patients with nodal disease compared to those with extranodal involvement (77% vs. 30%, P=0.007), and among those treated with RT alone compared to chemotherapy or combined modality treatment (54% vs. 13%, P=0.018). Baseline characteristics, including disease stage, age, International Prognostic Index, ECOG performance status, Ki-67 proliferation index, and MCL International Prognostic Index, did not differ significantly between patients with and without progression. OS was also not significantly different between these groups (P=0.236). When analyzed by disease presentation, OS was comparable between the nodal and extranodal groups (228 vs. 165 months; P = 0.78). However, patients with extranodal disease had significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared to those with nodal involvement (not reached vs. 72 months; P = 0.023). Baseline characteristics, including age, sex, IPI, ECOG status, and treatment modality, were similar between the two groups, with the exception of a higher prevalence of stage II disease in the nodal group (76% vs. 42%; P = 0.037). In the extranodal group, treatment modality did not significantly affect OS or PFS. In contrast, among those with nodal disease, RT alone was associated with a markedly increased risk of progression compared to chemotherapy-containing regimens (hazard ratio 8.6, 95% CI: 1.7–43.3; P = 0.009). Notably, disease stage did not independently affect PFS or OS in either the nodal or extranodal groups. Conclusion In this cohort, long-term survival outcomes were generally favorable. Extranodal involvement, particularly in the head and neck region, was common and associated with a lower risk of progression and significantly prolonged PFS compared to nodal disease. While treatment modality did not influence outcomes in patients with extranodal disease, chemotherapy-containing regimens demonstrated superior disease control over RT alone in those with nodal presentations.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».