4.7 Article

Characterization of peripheral T-cell lymphomas in a single North American institution by the WHO classification

期刊

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
卷 15, 期 10, 页码 1467-1475

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdh392

关键词

peripheral; T-cell lymphomas; WHO classification; IPI

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: All peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs) diagnosed at a single institution were evaluated to determine the unique clinical features and outcome of specific entities and test the predictive validity of the International Prognostic Index (IPI). Patients and methods: Cases of PTCL seen at the British Columbia Cancer Agency between 1981 and 2000 were identified. Pathologic material was re-assessed and classified according to the WHO classification, and patients were staged and treated uniformly according to era-specific guidelines. In total, there were 199 patients with PTCL and the most common subtypes were peripheral T-cell lymphoma unspecified (PTCL-US) (59%), anaplastic large-cell lymphoma, systemic type (ALCL) (17%) and extranodal NK/T-cell lymphoma, nasal and nasal-type (NASAL) (9%). Most patients were treated with CHOP-type chemotherapy. Results: Three distinct prognostic subgroups were notable on survival analysis: favorable (cutaneous ALCL), 5-year overall survival (OS) 78%; intermediate [PTCL, ALCL and angioimmunoblastic lymphoma (AILT)], 5-year OS 35-43%; unfavorable [NASAL and enteropathy-type T-cell lymphoma (ETTL)], 5-year OS 22-24%. Furthermore, in PTCL-US and ALCL clinical separation of patients into good risk (IPI 0,1) and poor risk (IPI greater than or equal to2) subsets was demonstrated. Conclusions: A large proportion of PTCL patients have poor risk disease and/or a histologically aggressive subtype with frequent relapse and unfavorable outcome. For these patients, treatment with CHOP chemotherapy is only minimally effective and new strategies need to be developed, an effort that will require a multi-institution international collaboration due to the rarity of most subtypes.

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