↓ Skip to main content

Local Disease Control in Ocular Adnexal Lymphoproliferative Disorders: Comparative Outcomes of MALT Versus Non-MALT Histologies

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Local Disease Control in Ocular Adnexal Lymphoproliferative Disorders: Comparative Outcomes of MALT Versus Non-MALT Histologies
Published in
Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia, February 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.clml.2017.02.002
Pubmed ID
Authors

Binod Dhakal, Timothy S. Fenske, Sridevi Ramalingam, Jamie Shuff, Narendranath Epperla, Paul Hosking, Lisa Rein, Anjisnu Banerjee, Parameswaran Hari, Anita D'Souza, Nirav Shah, Malika Siker, Gregory J. Griepentrog, Gerald J. Harris, Timothy S. Wells, Beth A. Erickson, Mehdi Hamadani

Abstract

Ocular adnexal lymphoproliferative disorders (OALDs) are almost exclusively of B-cell origin, with the majority being extra-nodal marginal zone lymphomas of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT). The comparative efficacy of involved field radiation therapy (IFRT) in MALT vs. non-MALT OALDs is not known. We present a single-center, large cohort, retrospective study of the efficacy of IFRT in OALDs. Failure-free survival (FFS), complete remission, and local, regional, and distant failure were determined for 112 patients with MALT OALDs (n = 71) and non-MALT OALDs (n = 41) cohorts. Fifty-six patients with MALT OALD and 26 patients with non-MALT OALD received IFRT only (without any planned concurrent or sequential systemic chemothereapy or chemo-immunotherapies). Among the OALD cohorts treated with only IFRT, complete remission was achieved in 49 (87.5%) patients in the MALT cohort and 23 (88.4%) in the non-MALT cohort (P = .99). Clinically, resolution of symptoms occurred in 83.3% and 93.3% of the patients in the MALT and non-MALT cohorts, respectively. Local failure occurred in 4 (7.1%) patients in the MALT cohort, compared with 4 (15.3%) patients in the non-MALT cohort (P = .24). Regional failure (or extra-orbital failure) occurred in 5 (8.9%) patients in the MALT cohort and in 3 (11.5%) patients in the non-MALT cohort (P = .71). Distant failure was reported in 1 (1.7%) and 2 patients (7.6%) in the MALT and non-MALT cohorts, respectively (P = .18). The median follow-up of survivors was 5.1 years (range, 0.1-22.5 years) in the MALT cohort and 3.9 years (range, 0.1-22.9 years) in the non-MALT cohort. The 5-year and 10-year FFS was 95% (95% confidence interval [CI], 88%-100%) and 83% (95% CI, 70%-98%) for the ocular MALT and 67% (95% CI, 48%-94%) and 56% (95% CI, 34%-91%) for the non-MALT cohorts, respectively (log rank for P = .025). On multivariate analyses, age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.06; 95% CI, 1.10-1.12; P = .03), presence of non-MALT histology (HR, 13.9; 95% CI, 2.05-94.4; P = .007), and radiation dose < 30.6 Gy (HR, 5.27; 95% CI, 1.14-24.3; P = .03) were associated with worse FFS. The 5-year and 10-year overall survival was 92% (95%, CI 83%-100%) and 80% (95% CI, 66%-96%) for the MALT and 78% (95% CI, 61%-100%) and 62% (95% CI, 38%-100%) for the non-MALT cohorts, respectively (P = .80). Our results reveal that IFRT provided excellent disease control with superior FFS in the MALT cohort when compared with the non-MALT group.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 24%
Student > Master 3 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 4 19%
Unknown 4 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 52%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Unknown 5 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 May 2017.
All research outputs
#17,289,387
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia
#1,246
of 2,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,846
of 319,461 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia
#16
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,059 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 319,461 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.