Peripheral Blood Lymphocyte/Monocyte Ratio Predicts Outcome in Follicular Lymphoma and in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Patients in the Rituximab Era
Peripheral Blood Lymphocyte/Monocyte Ratio Predicts Outcome in Follicular Lymphoma and in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Patients in the Rituximab Era
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.clml.2014.10.001
复制
发表时间：
2015-04-01
影响因子：
2.7
通讯作者：
Pioltelli, Pietro Enrico
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Belotti, Angelo;Doni, Elisa;Pioltelli, Pietro Enrico
淋巴细胞/单核细胞比率（LMR）在弥漫性大B细胞淋巴瘤（DLBCL）中的作用正在研究中;其在滤泡性淋巴瘤（FL）中的作用尚不清楚。我们发现LMR在FL和DLBCL.Background中的预后作用：弥漫性大B细胞淋巴瘤是一种侵袭性淋巴瘤，因此大量的研究集中在寻找预后因素。同样的兴趣也涉及FL，对于FL来说，识别患者候选人进行观察和等待（W&W）策略仍然是一种选择。对霍奇金和非霍奇金淋巴瘤患者淋巴细胞和单核细胞的数量和类型的研究表明，它们可能影响这些疾病的发病机制和预后。LMR最近正在研究作为DLBCL的新预后参数;在利妥昔单抗时代，该比率在FL中的作用尚不清楚。患者和方法：我们回顾性分析了137例DLBCL和132例FL患者，其中42例患者在诊断时进行了W&W入路。其余患者接受含利妥昔单抗的治疗。我们分析了诊断时不同的LMR截止值，并希望研究DLBCL和FL之间的预后效果。结果：我们发现，DLBCL和FL的最具鉴别力的LMR分别为2.4和2。在DLBCL患者中，与LMR < 2组相比，LMR值2与更长的治疗开始时间相关（p = 0.0096）。在接受利妥昔单抗化疗的92例患者中，LMR > 2组的2年PFS上级。结论：诊断时LMR是一种简单的工具，可以更好地确定DLBCL和FL患者的长期结局。使用这个工具可能会更好地定义选择在FL的理想候选人的W&W战略。(C)2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
The role of lymphocyte/monocyte ratio (LMR) in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is under investigation; its role in follicular lymphoma (FL) is unknown. We found a prognostic effect of LMR in FL and in DLBCL.Background: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma is an aggressive lymphoma and a large number of studies have therefore focused on the search for prognostic factors. The same interest concerns FL, for which identification of patients candidates for watch and wait (W&W) strategy is still an option. Studies about the number and type of lymphocytes and monocytes detectable in patients with Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphomas indicate they might affect the pathogenesis and prognosis of these diseases. LMR is recently under investigation as a new prognostic parameter in DLBCL; the role of this ratio in FL in the rituximab era is unknown. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 137 DLBCL and 132 FL patients referred to our institution; among FL pts, a W&W approach was performed at diagnosis for 42 patients. The remaining patients were treated with rituximab-containing therapy. We analyzed different LMR cutoff values at diagnosis and we wanted to investigate the prognostic effect among DLBCL and FL. Results: We found that the most discriminative LMR was 2.4 for DLBCL and 2 for FL. Among DLBCL patients, an LMR value 2 was associated with a longer time to treatment start compared with the LMR < 2 group p = .0096). Among the 92 patients treated with rituximab chemotherapy, 2-year PFS was superior in the LMR > 2 group. Conclusion: LMR at diagnosis is a simple tool to better define long-term outcome of DLBCL and FL patients. The use of this tool might better define selection in FL of ideal candidates for W&W strategy. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.