Backgound: In the workup of follicular lymphoma (FL), bone marrow biopsy (BMB) assessment is a key component of FLIPI and FLIPI2, the most widely used outcome scores. During the previous decade, several studies explored the role of FDG‐PET/CT for detecting nodal and extranodal disease, with only one large study comparing both techniques.Methods: The aim of our study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and the prognostic impact of both procedures in a retrospective cohort of 299 FL patients with both tests performed at diagnosis. In order to avoid a collinearity bias, FLIPI2 was deconstructed in its founding parameters, and the bone marrow involvement (BMI) parameter separately included as: a positive BMB, a positive PET/CT, the combined “PET/CT and BMB positive” or “PET/CT or BMB positive”. These variables were also confronted independently with the POD24 in 233 patients treated with intensive regimens.Results: In the total cohort, bone marrow was involved in 124 and 60 patients by BMB and PET/CT, respectively. In terms of overall survival, age > 60 y.o. and the combined “PET/CT or BMB positive” achieved statistical independence as a prognostic factor. In patients treated with an intensive regimen, only the combined “PET/CT or BMB positive” added prognostic value for a shorter overall survival, when confronted with the POD24.Conclusion: Our results show that in FL both BMB and PET/CT should be considered at diagnosis, as their combined assessment provides independent prognostic value in the context of the most widely use clinical scores.

Background: Assessment of bone marrow infiltration (BMI) is part of the initial staging of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), although BMI evaluated by biopsy (BMB) is not considered significant in the MIPI scales, and standardized recommendations remain lacking. Objectives: To evaluate the accuracy and prognostic impact of BMI assessed by PET/CT and BMB in a large series of MCL patients. Methods: We deconstructed the IPI-NCCN, MIPI, and MIPI-c indices and considered BMI as positive if indicated by a BMB, PET/CT scan, or a combination of both. Results: In the total cohort (n = 148), 110 patients had BMI detected by BMB and 33 by PET/CT. The sensitivity of BMB was higher than that of PET/CT (94.8% vs. 28.4%), as were its negative predictive value (84.2% vs. 27.8%) and accuracy (95.9% vs. 43.9%). In the total cohort, BMI detected by PET/CT showed a significant predictive value for PFS (p = 0.027), while BMB demonstrated independent prognostic value only in combination with PET/CT (p = 0.025). Among intensively treated patients (n = 128), PET/CT had significant clinical impact on PFS (p = 0.030), and when combined with BMB, it provided independent prognostic value for both PFS and OS (p = 0.026 and p = 0.033, respectively). Based on these findings, we propose a prognostic model (MCL-PET-I) that incorporates BMI by PET/CT, allowing for the identification of three groups with distinct clinical outcomes (p < 0.0001 for PFS and p = 0.00025 for OS). Conclusions: In the upfront work of MCL, PET/CT-based BMI has greater prognostic impact, while BMB remains essential for staging. We propose the MCL-PET-I prognostic index, which effectively differentiates between clinical risk groups.