4.7 Article

Lymphocyte-rich classical Hodgkin's lymphoma: Clinical presentation and treatment outcome in 100 patients treated within German Hodgkin's Study Group Trials

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 23, 期 24, 页码 5739-5745

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.17.970

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose To investigate the clinical characteristics and treatment outcome of patients with lymphocyte-rich classical Hodgkin's lymphoma (LRCHL) compared with other histologic subtypes of Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL). Patients and Methods From a total of 2,715 patients with biopsy-proven HL treated within the trials HD7 to HD12 of the German Hodgkin's Study Group, 100 patients (4%) with LRCHL, 145 patients (5%) with lymphocyte-predominant HL (LPHL), 1,688 patients (62%) with nodular sclerosis, 731 patients (27%) with mixed cellularity, and 23 patients (1%) with lymphocyte depletion were identified. Patients with LRCHL had a median age of 38 years (range, 16 to 74 years). Results Compared with other histologic subtypes, patients with LRCHL are, on average, older and usually present with early stages of disease (stage I, 34%; stage II, 46%). The median time of follow-up was 32.2 months (95% Cl, 28.2 to 37.0 months). Complete and partial remission was achieved in 96 patients (96%) and four patients (4%), respectively, with LRCHL. The event-free and overall survival rates were 97% (95% Cl, 96.7% to 96.9%) and 97% (95% Cl, 96.8% to 97.0%), respectively, at 30 months. Only three patients died; all of the deaths were caused by treatment-related toxicities. Conclusion LRCHL is a distinct subtype of CHL, with features of CHL and LPHL, and is a rare entity accounting for only 4% of HLs. LRCHL has a different pattern of clinical presentation and age and sex distribution than other CHLs. It is associated with an excellent prognosis if treated with current treatment regimens. When treating patients with LRCHL, great attention should be paid to avoid acute toxicities.

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

4.7
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