4.4 Article

A prospective analysis of low-grade gastric MALT lymphoma after Helicobacter pylori eradication

期刊

HELICOBACTER
卷 11, 期 6, 页码 569-573

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-5378.2006.00460.x

关键词

mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphoma; long-term outcome; Helicobacter pylori; eradication; recurrence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background : Primary gastric low-grade B-cell lymphoma of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT lymphoma) is known to be successfully treated with anti-Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) therapy alone. However, there are few reports on long-term results after eradication therapy. The aims of this study were to analyze the rate and the interval to reach complete remission (CR), and to assess the rate and the factors affecting recurrence of MALT lymphoma. Materials and Methods :Between 1996 and 2003, a total of 90 H. pylori-infected patients with low-grade MALT lymphoma were included in this study. For initial staging, endoscopic ultrasonography, chest-abdomen-pelvis CT scans, and bone marrow examination were taken. All patients were made to take anti-H. pylori therapy for 14 days. Tumoral response was assessed by endoscopy every 3 months till CR and every 6 months after achieving CR. Results :Among 90 treated patients, 85 (94.4%) reached CR. The median interval to CR was 3 months (range, 1-24). Seventy-nine (92.9%) patients were in CR at 12 months. Median follow-up period after CR was 45 months (range 15-109). Among 77 patients who were followed-up after CR, 8 (10.4%) patients were proved with recurrence of MALT lymphoma. Cumulative recurrence rate was 2.7, 11.5, and 12.2% at 1, 2, and 3 years. The presence of H. pylori was only a significant risk factor affecting recurrence. Conclusions : The status of H. pylori is the most important risk factor affecting recurrence. Therefore, adequate eradication regimen and accurate regular evaluation for H. pylori status are needed during follow up of primary gastric low-grade B-cell MALT lymphoma.

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