4.3 Review

Marginal zone lymphoma of the colon: case series from a single center and SEER data review

期刊

LEUKEMIA & LYMPHOMA
卷 63, 期 5, 页码 1160-1166

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/10428194.2021.2015766

关键词

Colon marginal zone lymphoma; colonic lymphoma; extranodal marginal zone lymphoma

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute (NCI) [1R01CA233945]
  2. University of Miami SCCC
  3. Dwoskin and Anthony Rizzo Families Foundations
  4. Jaime Erin Follicular Lymphoma Research Consortium
  5. NCI of the NIH [P30CA240139]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Colon extranodal marginal zone lymphoma (EMZL) is a poorly characterized disease in the literature. A retrospective study found that patients with colon EMZL mostly present with stage-I disease and have good prognosis with non-aggressive therapeutic approaches. The SEER database analysis also showed a high overall survival rate for stage-I colon EMZL patients with no significant difference between treatment groups.
Colon extranodal marginal zone lymphoma (EMZL) is poorly characterized in the literature. We performed a retrospective review of patients with colon EMZL at our institution and from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database. Eight patients were identified in our institution with majority (88%) presenting with stage-I disease. Initial management included active surveillance, polypectomy followed by surveillance, and surgical resection followed by chemotherapy. One patient with concurrent prostate carcinoma received radiation to the rectum. Initial therapy led to complete remission in five out of six treated patients with four of them maintaining remission at 88 months. SEER database identified 361 patients with stage-I colon EMZL. Overall survival for this cohort was 73.9% at 10 years with no significant difference in outcomes between treatment groups. Our single institution experience and the SEER data analysis emphasize indolent nature of colon EMZL and need for non-aggressive therapeutic approaches.

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

4.3
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