4.6 Article

Patterns of survival in lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma/waldenstrom macroglobulinemia: A population-based study of 1,555 patients diagnosed in Sweden from 1980 to 2005

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HEMATOLOGY
Volume 88, Issue 1, Pages 60-65

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajh.23351

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Stockholm County Council
  2. Karolinska Institutet
  3. Cancer Society in Stockholm
  4. Intramural Research Program of the NIH, NCI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Clinical management of lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma (LPL)/Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia (WM) has changed considerably over recent years, reflected in the use of new therapeutic agents (purine analogs, monoclonal antibodies, thalidomide- and bortezomib-based therapies). No population-based studies and few randomized trials have been performed to assess survival in newly diagnosed LPL/WM. We performed a large population-based study in Sweden including 1,555 LPL/WM patients diagnosed from 1980 to 2005. Relative survival ratios (RSRs) and excess mortality rate ratios (EMRR) were computed as measures of survival. Survival of LPL/WM patients has improved significantly (P = 0.007) over time with 5-year RSR = 0.57 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.460.68), 0.65 (0.570.73), 0.74 (0.680.80), 0.72 (0.660.77), and 0.78 (0.710.85) for patients diagnosed during the calendar periods 19801985, 19861990, 19911995, 19962000, and 20012005, respectively. Improvement in 1- and 5-year relative survival was found in all age groups and for LPL and WM separately. Patients with WM had lower excess mortality compared to LPL (EMRR = 0.38; 95% CI 0.300.48). Older age at diagnosis was associated with a poorer survival (P < 0.001). Taken together, we found a significant improvement in survival in LPL/WM over time. Despite this progress, new effective agents with a more favourable toxicity profile are needed to further improve survival in LPL/WM, especially in the elderly. Am. J. Hematol. 2013. (c) 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available