PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12521569

Small Bowel Lymphoma.

Abstract

Treatment of small bowel lymphoma requires the expertise of medical and surgical subspecialists. The two most important factors that determine the optimal treatment are histology and staging of small bowel lymphoma. Other factors that may affect treatment include age, multiple areas of involvement, tumor size, and perforation. At present, the best treatment for gastrointestinal lymphoma (stage IE disease) is limited resection of the tumor, followed by postoperative radiotherapy. The cure rate is approximately 75% for stage IE patients, even for those with aggressive histologic types. Chemotherapy is reserved for advanced-staged tumors. In patients with regional nodal involvement or extranodal involvement confined to one side of the diaphragm (pathologic stage IIE disease), chemotherapy should be combined with radiation therapy. The best chemotherapy regimen depends on the histology of the tumor. For diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, the most frequently diagnosed subtype of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), the CHOP regimen (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) is still the gold standard. Clinical trials have been conducted evaluating the new monoclonal antibody rituximab, along with the CHOP regimen for primary NHL. Results have been promising. The use of rituximab in the treatment of extranodal lymphoma is still being evaluated. Low-grade lymphomas have a more indolent course and do not respond as well to combination chemotherapy agents as the high-grade tumors. Fludarabine alone or in combination with cyclophosphamide is effective as a first-line agent for patients with low-grade NHL. It has also been used to treat relapsed or refractory low-grade NHL. Some promising results have been reported using the chemoimmunotherapy agent rituximab alone or in combination with fludarabine for the treatment of low-grade NHL. However, clinical trials are still needed. In patients with nodal involvement on both sides of the diaphragm or other extranodal involvement such as bone marrow or liver (pathologic stages IIIE and IVE), the disease is managed primarily with combination chemotherapy. Radiation therapy is reserved for treatment of initially bulky tumor sites, treatment of residual disease following chemotherapy, or serious local problems. The disease can be controlled in 25% to 40% of patients with stage IIIE or IVE disease. As with stage IIE disease, the optimal chemotherapy regimen depends on the histologic subtype of NHL.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Renard A. Rawls, Kenneth J. Vega, Bruce W. Trotman. 2003. Small Bowel Lymphoma.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11938-003-0030-9

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗