3.8 Article

HEPATITIS B SEROPREVELANCE IN MEDICAL ONCOLOGY PATIENTS

期刊

NOBEL MEDICUS
卷 16, 期 3, 页码 29-34

出版社

NOBEL ILAC

关键词

HBV; seroprevalence; chemotherapy; neoplasm; malignant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Chemotherapy can lead to hepatitis B virus reactivation (HBVr) in oncological patients. Most of clinical guidelines recommend screening tests for hepatitis B infection before chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to determine the seroprevalence of Hepatitis B before chemotherapy retrospectively by using the hospital computer database in patients who were followed up in our hospital and received chemotherapy, and asses whether or not vaccination is performed in patients who are anti-HBs negative. Material and Method: A total of 615 patients who underwent chemotherapy for solid organ malignancy from 1310 patients who were diagnosed and treated in the medical oncology outpatient clinic of our hospital between September 2013 and September 2017 were included in this study. The demographic characteristics and laboratory results of the patients were retrospectively reviewed in the hospital computer database. HBsAg, anti-HBs, antiHBc total ELISA, HBV DNA levels of the patients were evaluated. Results: Of the 615 patients receiving chemotherapy, 353 (57.4%) were females and 262 (42.6%) were males. The mean age of the patients who had chemotherapy for solid organ malignancy was 58.50 (19-95 years). In these patients, HBsAg positivity was found in 28 patients (5%), anti-HBs positivity was found in 409 patients (66.5%), anti-HBs negative was found in 206 patients (33.5%), anti-HBc total positivity was found in 195 patients (31.7%). HBV DNA positivity was detected in 16 patients. Conclusion: Risk factors such as HBVr, hepatic failure and chemotherapy interruption should be taken into consideration in patients receiving chemotherapy for solid organ malignancy and these patients should be screened for HBV infection and vaccination should be performed in anti-HBs negative cases.

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

3.8
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