4.4 Article

Clinical Characteristics and Outcome of Children With Burkitt Lymphoma in Uganda According to HIV Infection

期刊

PEDIATRIC BLOOD & CANCER
卷 52, 期 4, 页码 455-458

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pbc.21769

关键词

Burkitt lymphoma; characteristics; children; endemic Burkitt lymphoma; HIV; Outcome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Characteristics of children with Burkitt lymphoma (130 and HIV infection have riot been described in Uganda before. Procedure. We reviewed records at Uganda Canter Institute (UCI) for years 1994-2004, to compare clinical features and outcome of BL in children who, are HIV positive and negalive (HIV+, HIV-). As statistical methods we used student's t-test, Chi-Square and Kaplan-jMeier's to compare both groups. Results of 1,462 records of children retrieved, 228 met the eligibility criteria and were reviewed (158 HIV-, 70 HIV+). There were 139 (61 %) males and 89 (39%) females. The mean age was 6.9 years (HIV+ 6.7, HIV- 7.1). One hundred seventy-one case,; (75%) had facial tumor (HIV+ 71.4%, HIV-76.6%). HIV positive children presented sigificantly with extrafacial disease (lymphadenopathy 67%, hepatic masses 51%, and thoracic masses 10%). Presentation with advanced stage disease occurred mole frequently in HIV positive patients compared to HIV negative patients. Treatment response rates to chemotherapy were similar irrespective of HIV status. However, overall Survival was poorer if) HIV positive patients with a median survival of 11.79 months (P-value < 0.000, 95% CI 8.65-14.92). Conclusions. BL in Uganda presents frequently with facial disease irrespective of HIV status. However HIV+ BL also presents. commonly with extra facial sites, mainly lymphadenopathy. There is no difference in response to treatment with chemotherapy, but HIV+ BL patients have, poorer survival. There is need for wither characterization of BL in Uganda to understand the role of HIV in disease process and outcome. Pediatr blood Cancer 2009;-52:455-458 (c) 2008 Wiley-Liss. Inc.

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

4.4
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