4.7 Article

Prognostic significance of tumor burden in the blood of patients with erythrodermic primary cutaneous T-cell lymphoma

期刊

BLOOD
卷 97, 期 3, 页码 624-630

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood.V97.3.624

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Erythrodermic cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) includes patients with erythrodermic mycosis fungoides who may or may not exhibit blood involvement and Sezary syndrome and in whom hematological involvement is, by definition, present at diagnosis. These patients were stratified into 5 hematologic stages (H0-H4) by measuring blood tumor burden, and these data were correlated with survival. The study identified 57 patients: 3 had no evidence of hematologic involvement (H0), 8 had a peripheral blood T-cell clone detected by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis of the T-cell receptor gene and less than 5% Searzy cells on peripheral blood smear (H1), and 14 had either a T-cell clone detected by Southern blot analysis or PCR positivity with more than 5% circulating Sezary cells (H2), Twenty-four patients had absolute Sezary counts of more than 1 x 10(9) cells per liter (H3), and 8 patients had counts in excess of 10 x 10(9) cells per liter (H4), The disease-specific death rate was higher with increasing hematologic stage, after correcting for age at diagnosis. A univariate analysis of 30 patients with defined lymph node stage found hematologic stage (P = .045) and lymph node stage (P = .013) but not age (P = .136) to be poor prognostic indicators of survival. Multivariate analysis identified only lymph node stage to be prognostically important, although likelihood ratio tests indicated that hematologic stage provides additional information (P = .035), Increasing tumor burden in blood and lymph nodes of patients with erythrodermic CTCL was associated with a worse prognosis,The data imply that a hematologic staging system could complement existing tumor-node metastasis staging criteria in erythrodermic CTCL, (C) 2001 by The American Society of Hematology.

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