E J Knowles1, W H Tremaine2, G R Pearson2, T S Mair1. 1. Bell Equine Veterinary Clinic, Mereworth, UK. 2. Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford, UK.
Abstract
REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: Survey data on equine tumours are sparse compared with other species and may have changed over time. OBJECTIVES: To describe the most frequently diagnosed equine tumours recorded by a diagnostic pathology laboratory over 29 years, to identify background factors associated with tumour type, and to identify any changes in the tumours diagnosed or the background of cases submitted during the study period. STUDY DESIGN: Observational; cross-sectional analysis of records of a diagnostic pathology laboratory. METHODS: The records of all neoplastic equine histology submissions to the University of Bristol (January 1982-December 2010) were accessed from a database, and a list of diagnoses compiled. The 6 most commonly diagnosed tumour types were analysed using logistic regression to identify background factors associated with tumour type. The overall population of equine tumour submissions and the relative frequency of diagnosis of the most common tumour types were compared between decades. RESULTS: There were 964 cases included. The most frequently diagnosed tumours were: sarcoid (24% cases), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) (19%), lymphoma (14%), melanoma (6%), gonadal stromal tumour (6%) and mast cell tumour (MCT) (4%). With sarcoid, Thoroughbred/Thoroughbred cross and gelding as reference categories: increasing age was significantly associated with the odds of each of the other tumour types, mares were at reduced risk of SCC, Arab/Arab cross had a higher risk of MCT, Cob/Cob cross had an increased risk of SCC and MCT, and ponies had an increased risk of melanoma. The mean age of submissions increased in each successive decade and the breed composition became broader. Sarcoids and lymphoma formed a smaller proportion of diagnoses in later decades. CONCLUSIONS: The types of tumours submitted to this laboratory have changed over the last 3 decades. Current data inform clinicians and researchers and further studies are warranted to follow trends.
REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: Survey data on equine tumours are sparse compared with other species and may have changed over time. OBJECTIVES: To describe the most frequently diagnosed equine tumours recorded by a diagnostic pathology laboratory over 29 years, to identify background factors associated with tumour type, and to identify any changes in the tumours diagnosed or the background of cases submitted during the study period. STUDY DESIGN: Observational; cross-sectional analysis of records of a diagnostic pathology laboratory. METHODS: The records of all neoplastic equine histology submissions to the University of Bristol (January 1982-December 2010) were accessed from a database, and a list of diagnoses compiled. The 6 most commonly diagnosed tumour types were analysed using logistic regression to identify background factors associated with tumour type. The overall population of equinetumour submissions and the relative frequency of diagnosis of the most common tumour types were compared between decades. RESULTS: There were 964 cases included. The most frequently diagnosed tumours were: sarcoid (24% cases), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) (19%), lymphoma (14%), melanoma (6%), gonadal stromal tumour (6%) and mast cell tumour (MCT) (4%). With sarcoid, Thoroughbred/Thoroughbred cross and gelding as reference categories: increasing age was significantly associated with the odds of each of the other tumour types, mares were at reduced risk of SCC, Arab/Arab cross had a higher risk of MCT, Cob/Cob cross had an increased risk of SCC and MCT, and ponies had an increased risk of melanoma. The mean age of submissions increased in each successive decade and the breed composition became broader. Sarcoids and lymphoma formed a smaller proportion of diagnoses in later decades. CONCLUSIONS: The types of tumours submitted to this laboratory have changed over the last 3 decades. Current data inform clinicians and researchers and further studies are warranted to follow trends.
Authors: Juan M Castillo; May P Y Tse; Jenna C Dockweiler; Soon Hon Cheong; Mariana Diel de Amorim Journal: Can Vet J Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 1.008
Authors: Louise van der Weyden; E Elizabeth Patton; Geoffrey A Wood; Alastair K Foote; Thomas Brenn; Mark J Arends; David J Adams Journal: J Pathol Date: 2015-10-09 Impact factor: 7.996
Authors: Daniela Luethy; Angela E Frimberger; Daniela Bedenice; Barbara S Byrne; Erin S Groover; Rachel B Gardner; Trisha Lewis; Valerie S MacDonald; Lauren Proctor-Brown; Joy E Tomlinson; Kenneth M Rassnick; Amy L Johnson Journal: J Vet Intern Med Date: 2019-01-12 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: Moriel H Singer-Berk; Kelly E Knickelbein; Zachary T Lounsberry; Margo Crausaz; Savanna Vig; Nikhil Joshi; Monica Britton; Matthew L Settles; Christopher M Reilly; Ellison Bentley; Catherine Nunnery; Ann Dwyer; Mary E Lassaline; Rebecca R Bellone Journal: Int J Genomics Date: 2019-09-15 Impact factor: 2.326
Authors: Margo Crausaz; Thomas Launois; Kathryn Smith-Fleming; Annette M McCoy; Kelly E Knickelbein; Rebecca R Bellone Journal: Genes (Basel) Date: 2020-12-05 Impact factor: 4.096
Authors: Giorgia Tura; Barbara Brunetti; Elena Brigandì; Riccardo Rinnovati; Giuseppe Sarli; Giancarlo Avallone; Luisa Vera Muscatello; Roberto Marcello La Ragione; Andy E Durham; Barbara Bacci Journal: Vet Sci Date: 2022-09-01
Authors: Callum Arthurs; Alejandro Suarez-Bonnet; Claire Willis; Boyu Xie; Natalie Machulla; Tim S Mair; Kevin Cao; Michael Millar; Christopher Thrasivoulou; Simon L Priestnall; Aamir Ahmed Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-05-12 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Lucia Unger; Carlos Abril; Vinzenz Gerber; Vidhya Jagannathan; Christoph Koch; Eman Hamza Journal: J Vet Intern Med Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 3.175