Wang Luke, Chung Eliza, Wellard Cameron, Barraclough Allison, Campbell Belinda A, Chong Geoffrey, Di Ciaccio Pietro R, Gregory Gareth P, Hapgood Greg, Johnston Anna M, Tam Constantine, Opat Stephen, Wood Erica M, McQuilten Zoe K, Hawkes Eliza A
School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Department of Haematology, Eastern Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Blood Adv. 2025 May 13;9(9):2275-2284. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2024015072.
Tumor "bulk" has historically been considered an important prognostic marker and a clinical tool to guide treatment in patients with lymphoma. However, its use and definitions in trial designs vary significantly, and it is unclear how this has influenced the relevance of bulk in contemporary practice. This comprehensive literature review evaluated the definitions, applications, and prognostic impact of bulk in phase 3 randomized trials in 4 major lymphoma subtypes. Overall, 87 studies were identified across follicular lymphoma (FL), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL), and Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) with a wide range of bulk thresholds used (5 cm, 6 cm, 7 cm, 7.5 cm, 10 cm, and >1/3 mediastinal mass ratio [MMR]). The most common threshold was as follows: FL, 7 cm (58%); DLBCL, 7.5 cm and 10 cm (44% each); PTCL, 7.5 cm (66%); and HL, one-third MMR (91%). Bulk threshold was used by trials to determine eligibility (66%), stratification (24%), as a prognostic risk factor (37%), and as a decision tool for risk-adapted treatment, for example, radiotherapy (29%); however, bulk definitions used for these varied both between, and within, lymphoma subtypes and even within single trials in 25%. Furthermore, 32 studies incorporated bulk in prognostic analyses with only 5 showing significance for differential survival outcomes. Our analysis demonstrates high inconsistency in thresholds defining tumor bulk and use of bulk in phase 3 lymphoma trials across eligibility, stratification, therapeutic risk adaptation, and prognostication. This highlights an urgent need for international consensus on definitions of bulk within trials to improve its prognostic and predictive values and refine its application in clinical practice.
肿瘤“体积”一直以来都被视为重要的预后标志物以及指导淋巴瘤患者治疗的临床工具。然而,其在试验设计中的应用和定义差异显著,目前尚不清楚这对其在当代临床实践中的相关性产生了怎样的影响。这项全面的文献综述评估了肿瘤体积在4种主要淋巴瘤亚型的3期随机试验中的定义、应用及预后影响。总体而言,共纳入了87项针对滤泡性淋巴瘤(FL)、弥漫性大B细胞淋巴瘤(DLBCL)、外周T细胞淋巴瘤(PTCL)和霍奇金淋巴瘤(HL)的研究,这些研究采用了广泛的肿瘤体积阈值(5厘米、6厘米、7厘米、7.5厘米、10厘米以及>1/3纵隔肿块比[MMR])。最常用的阈值如下:FL为7厘米(58%);DLBCL为7.5厘米和10厘米(各占44%);PTCL为7.5厘米(66%);HL为1/3 MMR(91%)。各试验将肿瘤体积阈值用于确定入组资格(66%)、分层(24%)、作为预后危险因素(37%)以及作为风险适应性治疗(如放疗)的决策工具(29%);然而,用于这些目的的肿瘤体积定义在淋巴瘤亚型之间以及亚型内部均存在差异,甚至在25%的单个试验中也有所不同。此外,32项研究将肿瘤体积纳入预后分析,其中仅有5项显示对生存结局差异具有显著意义。我们的分析表明,在3期淋巴瘤试验中,定义肿瘤体积的阈值以及在入组资格、分层、治疗风险适应性和预后评估中使用肿瘤体积方面存在高度不一致性。这凸显了迫切需要就试验中肿瘤体积的定义达成国际共识,以提高其预后和预测价值,并优化其在临床实践中的应用。