4.7 Article

Prospective measurement of Epstein-Barr virus-DNA in plasma and peripheral blood mononuclear cells of extranodal NK/T-cell lymphoma, nasal type

Journal

BLOOD
Volume 118, Issue 23, Pages 6018-6022

Publisher

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2011-05-354142

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Kirin Pharma, Tokyo, Japan
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [21591239] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-DNA was prospectively analyzed in plasma and mononuclear cells (MNCs) from peripheral blood in patients with extranodal natural killer (NK)/T-cell lymphoma, nasal type, to evaluate the clinical significance for diagnosis, monitoring the tumor burden, and prognostication. Thirty-three patients were enrolled, and 32 were evaluable. Pretreatment plasma and MNC EBV-DNA was detectable in 14 (range, 50-71 000 copies/mL) and 6 patients (range, 20-780 copies/mu g DNA), respectively, and both were well correlated (r = 0.8741, P < .0001). Detectable plasma EBV-DNA was associated with higher clinical stage (P = .02), presence of B symptoms (P = .02), worse performance status (P = .02), and higher serum soluble IL-2 receptor level (P < .0001). Twenty-two patients attained complete response. Plasma EBV-DNA level was significantly higher in nonresponders than in responders (mean, 16 472 vs 2 645 copies/mL; P = .02). Multivariate analysis showed clinical stage (hazard ratio, 9.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.8%-45.0%) and pretreatment plasma EBV-DNA (hazard ratio, 10.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.3%-87.0%) were significant prognostic factors. Three-year overall survival of plasma EBV-DNA positive and negative patients was 42.9% and 94.4%, respectively (P = .0009). Plasma was a preferable sample for this purpose in NK/T-cell lymphoma, nasal type, and EBV-DNA level was a good indicator for response and overall survival. (Blood. 2011;118(23):6018-6022)

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