4.7 Article

Antibody titers against EBNA1 and EBNA2 in relation to Hodgkin lymphoma and history of infectious mononucleosis

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 130, 期 12, 页码 2886-2891

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.26334

关键词

Hodgkin lymphoma; Epstein-Barr virus; infectious mononucleosis; EBNA1; EBNA2

类别

资金

  1. Public Health Service [K07 CA115687]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A role for Epstein Barr virus (EBV) in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) pathogenesis is supported by the detection of EBV genome in about one-third of HL cases, but is not well defined. We previously reported that an elevated prediagnosis antibody titer against EBV nuclear antigens (EBNA) was the strongest serologic predictor of subsequent HL. For the present analysis, we measured antibody levels against EBNA components EBNA1 and EBNA2 and computed their titer ratio (anti-EBNA1:2) in serum samples from HL cases and healthy siblings. We undertook this analysis to examine whether titer patterns atypical of well-resolved EBV infection, such as an anti-EBNA1:2 ratio =1.0, simply reflect history of infectious mononucleosis (IM), an HL risk factor, or independently predict HL risk. Participants were selected from a previous population-based case-control study according to their history of IM. We identified 55 EBV-seropositive persons with a history of IM (IM+; 33 HL cases, 22 siblings) and frequency-matched a comparison series of 173 IM history-negative, EBV-seropositive subjects on HL status, gender, age and year of blood draw (IM-; 105 cases, 58 siblings). In multivariate logistic regression models, an anti-EBNA1:2 ratio =1.0 was significantly more prevalent in HL cases than siblings (odds ratio, 95% confidence interval = 2.43, 1.055.65); similar associations were apparent within the IM+ and IM- groups. EBNA antibodies were not significantly associated with IM history in HL cases or siblings. These associations suggest that chronic or more severe EBV infection is a risk factor for HL, independent of IM history.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据