OBJECTIVEThis study aimed to evaluate the value of different follow-up methods for the detection of first recurrence in lymphoma patients in first complete remission (CR), and to find reasonable long-term follow-up strategies.

METHODSWe retrospectively analyzed 277 lymphoma patients who achieved CR after first-line therapies and subsequently relapsed. All patients were divided into routine surveillance imaging group (group A) and irregular imaging follow-up visit group (group B). To compare the two groups of patients with tumor burden (tumor diameter and number of tumor invasion areas) at the time of relapse, and the number of imaging scans before the relapse. To analyze the main ways of finding lymphoma relapse in the two groups.

RESULTSAmong a total of 277 patients, there were 187 patients in the group A and 90 patients in the group B. The tumor recurrence occurred in 120 cases (43.3%) within the first year, and 76 patients (27.4%) in the second year. At the time of diagnosis of recurrence, the average maximum diameter of tumors in the groups A and B were (3.2 ± 2.2) cm and (3.8 ± 2.9) cm, respectively (P = 0.123). The two groups showed slight difference in number of tumor invasion areas (P = 0.050). At the time of diagnosis of recurrence, there were 3 of 121 patients (2.5%) with maximum diameter of tumors more than 8 cm in the group A and 6 of 49 cases (12.2%) in the group B (P = 0.018). In the group A, the patients had in average 4.9 times of imaging scans before recurrence, significantly more than the 0.22 times in the group B (P < 0.001). Among all patients, the diagnosis of recurrence was based on imaging scans only in 59 patients (21.3%).

CONCLUSIONSMost lymphoma patients do not benefit from routine surveillance imaging to detect the tumor recurrence. It indicates that we should not rely solely on imaging examinations at follow-up visits, and should pay more attention on clinical signs and symptoms.