4.7 Article

Racial Differences in the Presentation and Outcomes of Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma in the United States

期刊

CANCER
卷 117, 期 11, 页码 2530-2540

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.25765

关键词

diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; Surveillance; Epidemiology; End Results program; incidence; survival; race

类别

资金

  1. Dr. Flowers' Georgia Cancer Coalition Distinguished Scientist Award
  2. American Society of Hematology Amos Medical Faculty Development

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is often cured with standard chemoimmunotherapy, but there is great heterogeneity in presentation and outcomes. METHODS: By using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data from 13 registries across the United States, the authors examined differences in incidence and survival for DLBCL by race. International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, third edition histology codes 9678, 9679, 9680, and 9684 were used to identify cases. RESULTS: From 1992 to 2007, 38,522 cases of DLBCL were recorded in SEER. Sixty-five percent of black patients compared with 37% of white patients presented at age <= 60 years, 52% of blacks compared with 44% of whites presented with stage III/IV disease, and 31% of black versus 24% of white patients presented with B symptoms (all P < .001). Although survival improved by era of diagnosis for all races (log rank P < .001), 2-year relative survival rates were better for women than men (61% vs 58%, P < .001) and white than black patients (60% vs 50%, P < .001). Black race, male sex, age at diagnosis >60, advanced stage, and B symptoms at diagnosis were predictors of worse survival (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Black patients with DLBCL in the United States present at younger age, more advanced stage, and have inferior survival. Epidemiological studies that examine the biological variants of DLBCL in concert with race are needed to elucidate the etiology of these disparities. Cancer 2011; 117: 2530-40. (C) 2010 American Cancer Society.

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