4.4 Article

HIV-related lung cancer in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy

Journal

AIDS
Volume 17, Issue 3, Pages 371-375

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00002030-200302140-00011

Keywords

highly active antiretroviral therapy; HIV; incidence; lung cancer

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To address the impact of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) on the incidence and outcome of patients with HIV-related lung cancer. Design and subjects: Patients with HIV-related lung cancer were identified from a prospective HIV data base of 8400 patients diagnosed between 1986 and 2001. Patients diagnosed with HIV-related lung cancer before 1996 were in the pre-HAART cohort whereas the remainder were in the post-HAART cohort. Methods: The incidence of HIV-related lung cancer in the pre- and post-HAART cohorts was compared with the age and sex-matched population of south east England. Clinicopathological features, treatments and outcomes were also recorded. Results: The incidence of HIV-related lung cancer increased from 0.8 (95% Cl 0.2-3.2)/10(5) patient-years follow-up in the pre-HAART era to 6.7 (95% Cl 3.1-13.9)/105 patient-years follow-up in the post-HAART era. The age and sex-matched incidence of lung cancer in south east England was 0.75 (95% Cl 0.63-0.87)/10(5) patient-years, suggesting that HIV-related lung cancer only occurred more frequently in the post-HAART era (relative risk 8.93, 95% Cl 4.92-19.98). The patient characteristics and outcomes were similar in the pre- and post-HAART eras, although the time interval between testing HIV positive and developing HIV-related lung cancer was longer in post-HAART patients. Conclusion: In this study HIV-related lung cancer occurred more frequently in the post-HAART era, when compared with the HIV-negative population. Unfortunately, the outcome of these patients remains poor despite HAART. (C) 2003 Lippincott Williams Wilkins.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available