A Comparative Assessment of Quality of Life in Patients with Multiple Myeloma Undergoing Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation Through an Outpatient and Inpatient Model.

Outpatient autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has proven to be feasible in terms of physical morbidity and mortality outcomes, but little data exist on the impact of this procedure on quality of life (QoL). The purpose of this prospective, observational, longitudinal cohort study was to compare the effects of inpatient (n = 76) and outpatient (n = 64) modes of care on QoL in patients with multiple myeloma who underwent ASCT. Patients were treated according to their preference for the inpatient or outpatient model. QoL was assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Bone Marrow Transplantation (FACT-BMT) at baseline (7 days before ASCT; T1) and at days +7 (T2) and +30 (T3) after ASCT. Overall, inpatients achieved higher mean values at each time point (86.05 ± 15.54 at T1, 89.23 ± 19.19 at T2, and 87.96 ± 13.6 at T3) compared with outpatients (85.62 ± 14.51 at T1, 87.42 ± 23.41 at T2, and 83.98 ± 20.2 at T3), although the differences did not reach statistical significance. Inpatients showed higher mean scores than outpatients in physical well-being (7.67 ± 5.7, 15.44 ± 6.34, and 12.96 ± 6.03, respectively, versus 5.89 ± 4.33, 13.92 ± 7.05, and 8.84 ± 6.33, respectively; P < .05). Mean scores on social/family well-being were significantly higher in the outpatient group compared with the inpatient group (22.93 ± 13.29, 21.14 ± 5.31, and 21.64 ± 4.58, respectively, versus 20.59 ± 3.79, 19.52 ± 5.12, and 20.01 ± 3.97, respectively; P = .003). There were no significant between-group differences with respect to functional well-being and emotional status. Among adults at a single institution undergoing ASCT for MM, the use of outpatient care compared with standard transplantation care did not result in improved QoL during transplantation. Further research is needed for replication and to assess longer-term outcomes and implications.

Improving Provision of Care for Long-term Survivors of Lymphoma.

The progressive improvement of lymphoma therapies has led to a significant prolongation of patient survival and life expectancy. However, lymphoma survivors are at high risk of experiencing a range of early and late adverse effects associated with the extent of treatment exposure. Among these, second malignancies and cardiopulmonary diseases can be fatal, and neurocognitive dysfunction, endocrinopathy, muscle atrophy, and persistent fatigue can affect patients' quality of life for decades after treatment. Early recognition and reduction of risk factors and proper monitoring and treatment of these complications require well-defined follow-up criteria, close coordination among specialists of different disciplines, and a tailored model of survivorship care. We have summarized the major aspects of therapy-related effects in lymphoma patients, reviewed the current recommendations for follow-up protocols, and described a new hospital-based model of survivorship care provision from a recent multicenter Italian experience.

Role of WB-MR/DWIBS compared to (18)F-FDG PET/CT in the therapy response assessment of lymphoma.

INTRODUCTION: This study prospectively evaluated whole-body magnetic resonance/diffusion-weighted imaging with body signal suppression (WB-MR/DWIBS) reliability compared to (18)F-FDG PET/CT in the treatment response assessment of classic Hodgkin lymphomas (HL) and aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphomas (aNHL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-seven consecutive patients were prospectively enrolled at the time of diagnosis. Eighteen (11 HL and seven aNHL) were considered for the analysis. They received chemo/radiotherapy as induction and completed post-treatment evaluation performing both (18)F-FDG PET/CT and WB-MR/DWIBS. The revised response criteria for malignant lymphomas were used to assess the response to treatment. We evaluated the agreement between the two methods by Cohen's K test. Post-therapy WB-MR/DWIBS sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy were then calculated, considering the 12 months of follow-up period as the gold standard. RESULTS: By using an evaluation on a lesion-by-lesion basis, WB-MR/DWIBS and (18)F-FDG PET/CT showed an overall good agreement (K = 0.796, 95% IC = 0.651-0.941), especially in the evaluation of the nodal basins in aNHL (K = 0.937, 95% IC = 0.814-1). In reference to the revised response criteria for malignant lymphomas, the two methods showed a good agreement (K = 0.824, 95% IC = 0.493-1). Post-therapy sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of WB-MR/DWIBS were 43, 91, 75, 71 and 72%, respectively. CONCLUSION: WB-MR/DWIBS seems to be an appropriate method for the post-treatment assessment of patients affected by HL and aNHL. The small discrepancies between the two methods found within HL could be due to the biological and metabolic behavior of this group of diseases. Larger prospective studies are necessary to better define the role of WB-MR/DWIBS in this setting of patients.