A Systematic Approach to the Diagnosis of Suspected Central Nervous System Lymphoma

JAMA neurology 01/2013; 70(3):1-9. DOI: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2013.606
Source: PubMed


Central nervous system (CNS) lymphoma can present a diagnostic challenge. Currently, there is no consensus regarding what presurgical evaluation is warranted or how to proceed when lesions are not surgically accessible. We conducted a review of the literature on CNS lymphoma diagnosis (1966 to October 2011) to determine whether a common diagnostic algorithm can be generated. We extracted data regarding the usefulness of brain and body imaging, serum and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) studies, ophthalmologic examination, and tissue biopsy in the diagnosis of CNS lymphoma. Contrast enhancement on imaging is highly sensitive at the time of diagnosis: 98.9% in immunocompetent lymphoma and 96.1% in human immunodeficiency virus-related CNS lymphoma. The sensitivity of CSF cytology is low (2%-32%) but increases when combined with flow cytometry. Cerebrospinal fluid lactate dehydrogenase isozyme 5, β2-microglobulin, and immunoglobulin heavy chain rearrangement studies have improved sensitivity over CSF cytology (58%-85%) but have only moderate specificity (85%). New techniques of proteomics and microRNA analysis have more than 95% specificity in the diagnosis of CNS lymphoma. Positive CSF cytology, vitreous biopsy, or brain/leptomeningeal biopsy remain the current standard for diagnosis. A combined stepwise systematic approach outlined here may facilitate an expeditious, comprehensive presurgical evaluation for cases of suspected CNS lymphoma.

1 Follower
9 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Central nervous system (CNS) involvement is a major complication of haematological and solid tumors with an incidence that ranges from 10% in solid malignances up to 25% in specific leukaemia or lymphoma subtypes. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) patterns are unspecific. Though CSF cytology has a high specificity (up to 95%), its sensitivity is generally less than 50% and no diagnostic gold standard marker is available, yet. New technologies such as flow cytometry, molecular genetics and newer biomarkers may improve diagnostic sensitivity and specificity, leading to the CNS involvement diagnosis, and consequently, to an effective prophylaxis and successful treatment.
    Arquivos de neuro-psiquiatria 09/2013; 71(9B):677-80. DOI:10.1590/0004-282X20130149 · 0.84 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The authors present a retrospective analysis of 45 patients who underwent treatment of CNS lymphoma (both primary and secondary) at a single institution between 2005 and 2012. This study involves 21 female and 24 male patients with a mean age of 59.2 years. All medical records and pathology reports were reviewed for each patient. Univariate and multivariate analyses of overall survival were performed. Presentation with altered mental status was a significant risk factor for worse overall survival. An HIV infection, deep lesion location, and age over 60 did not impact survival. A survival benefit was demonstrated with the use of systemic therapy, specifically rituximab, and radiation. The CNS Lymphoma Score was derived from this cohort, which proved a powerful predictive tool for overall survival. The surgical complication rate in this series was 17.8 %. This study highlights the prognostic importance of presenting mental status on outcomes in CNS lymphoma and demonstrates a summative benefit of rituximab and whole brain radiation therapy. Considering these factors together provides an easily applicable and meaningful stratification for this patient population. The surgical complication rate in this patient population is not negligible. The high percentage of wound-related surgical complications suggests the need for a waiting period between surgery and initiation of chemotherapy to allow for wound healing.
    Acta Neurochirurgica 09/2013; 156(2). DOI:10.1007/s00701-013-1878-7 · 1.77 Impact Factor
  • Clinical lymphoma, myeloma & leukemia 02/2014; 14(4). DOI:10.1016/j.clml.2014.01.005 · 2.02 Impact Factor
Show more