4.5 Article

Improved prognosis of extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma, nasal type of nasal origin but not extranasal origin

期刊

ANNALS OF HEMATOLOGY
卷 98, 期 7, 页码 1647-1655

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00277-019-03689-9

关键词

NK; T cell lymphoma; Extranasal; Chemotherapy; Radiotherapy

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [26461418, 17K09924]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [26461418, 17K09924] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Extranodal NK/T cell lymphoma (NKTCL), nasal type (ENKL) that shows no apparent nasal involvement, is termed extranasal NKTCL or non-nasal NKTCL. In this study, we aimed to explore therapeutic approaches and outcomes in patients with extranasal NKTCL in current clinical practice. A data set of patients with newly diagnosed NKTCL who were diagnosed at 31 institutes in Japan between 2000 and 2013 was used for analysis. The patients' fitness for steroid, methotrexate, ifosfamide, l-asparaginase, and etoposide (SMILE) chemotherapy was assessed using the major inclusion criteria of the SMILE phase 2 study. Of 358 patients, 47 (13%) had extranasal NKTCL. The most frequent extranodal sites of involvement in extranasal NKTCL were skin/subcutaneous tissue (n=18). Six (13%) of the patients with extranasal NKTCL had localized disease and were diagnosed before 2010. With a median follow-up of 5.8years, the 2-year overall survival (OS) in patients with nasal and extranasal NKTCL was 70% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65-75%) and 34% (95% CI, 21-47%), respectively. OS in patients with nasal NKTCL had a trend toward better according to treatment era (P=0.063). In contrast, no obvious improvement of OS was observed in extranasal NKTCL (P=0.43). The major inclusion criteria of the SMILE-P2 were met in 21% (10/47) of patients with extranasal NKTCL and 60% (188/311) of those with nasal NKTCL (P<0.001). Despite the advent of new treatments for ENKL, OS remains unfavorable in extranasal NKTCL. A more effective therapy is needed for extranasal NKTCL.

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

4.5
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