4.1 Review

Lymphomas of the salivary glands: a systematic review

期刊

ACTA OTO-LARYNGOLOGICA
卷 143, 期 7, 页码 610-616

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00016489.2023.2226689

关键词

Lymphoma; cancer; salivary glands; Sjogren's syndrome; autoimmune disease; Ann Arbor staging; head and neck; >

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this systematic review, the demographics and characteristics of salivary gland lymphomas were presented. The results showed that lymphomas occur in all salivary glands and mainly in elderly female patients, with a close association with Sjogren's syndrome. Depending on the anatomical location, the lymphoma subtypes vary in aggressiveness, stage, and prognosis.
BackgroundLymphomas constitute 2% of all salivary gland tumors and are the second most common group of malignancies in the head and neck region.ObjectivesIn this systematic review, the demographics and characteristics of salivary gland lymphomas are presented.MethodsAll types of studies that involve data of salivary gland lymphomas between 1990 and 2020 were identified and screened.ResultsA total of 169 articles with 1640 patients were identified. The median age of the patients was 59 years with a range between 10 and 87 years. The anatomic locations of salivary gland lymphomas were distributed with 88% in the parotid glands, 9% in the submandibular glands, 1% in the minor salivary glands, and 0.3% in the sublingual glands. The overall survival at 12 months is high and in line with the outcome of indolent lymphomas in general. The predominant indolent subtypes were extranodal marginal zone lymphomas and follicular lymphomas, whereas the more aggressive subtypes were mainly diffuse large B-cell lymphomas, mantle cell lymphomas, and T-cell lymphomas.ConclusionIn conclusion, lymphomas occur in all salivary glands and mainly in elderly female patients. Sjogren's syndrome is frequently associated. Depending on the anatomical location, the lymphoma subtypes vary in aggressiveness, stage, and prognosis.

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

4.1
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