论文部分内容阅读
Objective: Extranodal involvement represents a peculiar presentation of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma(DLBCL). Previous studies have suggested that older patients are more prone to extranodal involvement. This study retrospectively addressed the distribution, prognostic value and treatment options of extranodal involvement in young patients with DLBCL.Methods: A total of 329 patients were enrolled according to the inclusion requirements. The effects of gender,extranodal involvement, age-adjusted international prognostic index(aa IPI), rituximab infusion and radiotherapy on patient outcomes were evaluated.Results: Among these patients, 59% presented extranodal involvement in 16 anatomic sites. More than one instance was linked to many poorer clinical characteristics and poorer survival compared with either nodal disease or one instance. In patients with one extranodal lesion, multivariate analysis revealed that the site of extranodal involvement, but not the aa IPI or rituximab infusion, was independently related to the outcome, and radiotherapy had a negative influence on survival.Conclusions: Extranodal involvement is common in younger patients and exhibits a ubiquitous distribution.The site of extranodal involvement is of strong prognostic significance. Radiotherapy for extranodal lesions does not improve patient outcomes.
Objective: Extranodal involvement representing a peculiar presentation of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Previous studies have suggested that older patients are more prone to extranodal involvement. This study retrospectively addressed the distribution, prognostic value and treatment options of extranodal involvement in young The effects of gender, extranodal involvement, age-adjusted international prognostic index (aa IPI), rituximab infusion and radiotherapy on patient outcomes were evaluated. Results: A total of 329 patients were enrolled according to the inclusion requirements. Among these patients, 59% presented extranodal involvement in 16 anatomic sites. More than one instance was linked to many poorer clinical characteristics and poorer survival compared with either nodal disease or one instance. In patients with one extranodal lesion, multivariate analysis revealed that the site of extranodal involvement, but not the aa IPI or rituximab infusion, was independently related to the outcome, and radiotherapy had a negative influence on survival. Conclusions: Extranodal involvement is common in younger patients and exhibits a ubiquitous distribution. The site of extranodal involvement is of strong prognostic significance. Radiotherapy for extranodal lesions does not improve patient outcomes.