4.7 Article

Pyothorax-associated lymphoma: A review of 106 cases

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 20, Issue 20, Pages 4255-4260

Publisher

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2002.09.021

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose : Pyothorax-associated lymphoma (PAL) is a non-Hodgkin's lymphoma developing in the pleural cavity after a long-standing history of pyothorax. Full details of PAL are provided here. Patients and Methods: Clinical and pathologic findings were reviewed in 106 patients with PAL collected through a nationwide survey in Japan. Results: Age of the patients with PAL was 46 to 82 years (median, 64 years), with a male/female ratio of 12.3:1. All patients had a 20- to 64-year (median, 37-year) history of pyothorax resulting from artificial pneumothorax for treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis (80%) or tuberculous pleuritis (17%). The most common symptoms on admission were chest and/or back pain (57%) and fever (43%). Laboratory data showed that the serum neuron-specific enolase level was occasionally elevated (3.55 to 168.7 ng/mL; median, 18.65 ng/mL), suggesting a possible diagnosis of small-cell lung cancer. Histologically, PAL usually showed a diffuse proliferation of large cells of B-cell type (88%). In situ hybridization study showed that PAL in 70% of the patients was Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-positive. PAL was responsive to chemotherapy, but the overall prognosis was poor, with a 5-year survival of 21.6%. Conclusion: This study established the distinct nature of PAL as a disease entity. PAL is a non-Hodgkin's lymphoma of exclusively B-cell phenotype in the pleural cavity of patients with long-standing history of pyothorax, and is strongly associated with EBV infection. Development of PAL is closely related to antecedent chronic inflammatory condition; therefore, PAL should be defined as malignant lymphoma developing in chronic inflammation.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available