University of Oulu

Tokola, S, Kuitunen, H, Turpeenniemi‐Hujanen, T, Kuittinen, O. Significance of bulky mass and residual tumor—Treated with or without consolidative radiotherapy—To the risk of relapse in DLBCL patients. Cancer Med. 2020; 9: 1966– 1977. https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.2798

Significance of bulky mass and residual tumor : Treated with or without consolidative radiotherapy—To the risk of relapse in DLBCL patients

Saved in:
Author: Tokola, Susanna1; Kuitunen, Hanne1; Turpeenniemi-Hujanen, Taina1;
Organizations: 1Department of Oncology and Radiotherapy, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu University, Oulu, Finland
2Faculty of Health Medicine, Department of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Kuopio University Hospital, University of Eastern Finland, Oulu, Finland
Format: article
Version: published version
Access: open
Online Access: PDF Full Text (PDF, 0.9 MB)
Persistent link: http://urn.fi/urn:nbn:fi-fe2020042822874
Language: English
Published: John Wiley & Sons, 2020
Publish Date: 2020-04-28
Description:

Abstract

Bulky and residual tumor are considered to increase the risk of relapse in diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients. Radiotherapy is conventionally used to reduce the risk, but the evidence is controversial. We performed a retrospective analysis to evaluate the significance of bulky and residual tumor treated with or without radiotherapy in DLBCL patients. We analyzed 312 DLBCL patients treated from 2010‐2017 in Oulu University Hospital. A bulky tumor was detected in 123 patients and 55 of these patients (44.3%) received consolidative radiation therapy (RT) to the bulky tumor. Residual tumor meeting the required criteria was found in 138 (39.3%) patients, and 65 (45.5%) of these patients received consolidative RT to the site of residual tumor. iPET‐CT scans were performed in 102 patients. In multivariate analyses, bulky was an independent risk factor in limited stage patients in progression free survival (HR 6.43 [95%CI 1.609‐25.710]; P = .008) not related to International prognostic index (HR 1.35 [95% CI 0.256‐7.124]; P = .724) or age (HR 1.62 [95% CI 0.468‐5.638]; P = .445). This was not seen in advanced stage patients or in patients with residual tumor. Radiotherapy to the bulky or residual tumor was not able to improve the long‐term PFS of patients. In this study, it appears that performing iPET is the most convincing method in improving evaluation and in finding patients with increased risk of relapse. Evidently, patients with negative iPET will not benefit from including RT in the treatment after metabolic complete response (CR), and patients with primary refractory disease are most likely in the group of positive iPET.

see all

Series: Cancer medicine
ISSN: 2045-7634
ISSN-E: 2045-7634
ISSN-L: 2045-7634
Volume: 9
Issue: 6
Pages: 1966 - 1977
DOI: 10.1002/cam4.2798
OADOI: https://oadoi.org/10.1002/cam4.2798
Type of Publication: A1 Journal article – refereed
Field of Science: 3126 Surgery, anesthesiology, intensive care, radiology
3122 Cancers
Subjects:
Dataset Reference: The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.
Copyright information: © 2019 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
  https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/