H Wilson-Robles1, C M Budke2, T Miller1, N Dervisis3, A Novosad4, Z Wright5, D H Thamm6, K Vickery7, K Burgess8, M Childress9, J Lori10, C Saba11, S Rau12, M Silver13, G Post14, K Reeds15, S Gillings16, S Schleis17, T Stein18, B Brugmann19, C DeRegis20, O Smrkovski21, J Lawrence11, T Laver22. 1. Small Animal Clinical Sciences Department, College of Veterinary Medicine, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. 2. Veterinary Integrative Biosciences Department, College of Veterinary Medicine, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. 3. Small Animal Clinical Sciences Department, Veterinary Medical Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. 4. Sugar Land Veterinary Specialists and Emergency Care, Sugar Land, Texas. 5. VCA Animal Diagnostic Clinic, Dallas, Texas. 6. Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. 7. Hope Veterinary Specialists, Malvern, Pennsylvania. 8. Department of Clinical Sciences, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, Tufts University, North Grafton, Massachusetts. 9. Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana. 10. Animal Emergency and Specialty Center, Parker, Colorado. 11. Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, St Paul, Minnesota. 12. Metropolitan Veterinary Associates, Norristown, Pennsylvania. 13. New England Veterinary Oncology Group, Waltham, Massachusetts. 14. Department of Oncology, The Veterinary Cancer Center, Norwalk, Connecticut. 15. Veterinary Clinical Sciences Department, Center for Veterinary Health Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma. 16. Summit Veterinary Referral Center, Tacoma, Washington. 17. Clinical Sciences Department, College of Veterinary Medicine, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama. 18. Medical Sciences Department, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin. 19. Veterinary Clinical Sciences Department, School of Veterinary Medicine, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 20. Pieper Memorial Veterinary Center, Middletown, Connecticut. 21. Small Animal Clinical Sciences Department, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee. 22. Department of Small Animal Medicine and Surgery, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In humans geographical differences in the incidence and presentation of various cancers have been reported. However, much of this information has not been collected in veterinary oncology. AIM: The purpose of this study was to determine if a geographic difference in progression free survival exists for dogs with lymphoma treated within the US. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical records of 775 cases of canine lymphoma from 3 US regions (west, south and north), treated with CHOP chemotherapy, were retrospectively evaluated. Cases were collected from referral institutions and were required to have received at least one doxorubicin treatment and have follow up information regarding time to progression. RESULTS: Significant differences in sex (p = 0.05), weight (p = 0.049), stage (p < 0.001), immunophenotype (p = <0.001), and number of doxorubicin doses (p = 0.001) were seen between regions. Upon univariate analysis, progression free survival (PFS) differed by region (p = 0.006), stage (p = 0.009), sub-stage (p = 0.0005), and immunophenotype (p = 0.001). A multivariable Cox regression model showed that dogs in the western region had a significantly shorter PFS when compared to the south and east. CONCLUSION: PFS was significantly affected by stage, sub-stage and phenotype.
BACKGROUND: In humans geographical differences in the incidence and presentation of various cancers have been reported. However, much of this information has not been collected in veterinary oncology. AIM: The purpose of this study was to determine if a geographic difference in progression free survival exists for dogs with lymphoma treated within the US. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical records of 775 cases of caninelymphoma from 3 US regions (west, south and north), treated with CHOP chemotherapy, were retrospectively evaluated. Cases were collected from referral institutions and were required to have received at least one doxorubicin treatment and have follow up information regarding time to progression. RESULTS: Significant differences in sex (p = 0.05), weight (p = 0.049), stage (p < 0.001), immunophenotype (p = <0.001), and number of doxorubicin doses (p = 0.001) were seen between regions. Upon univariate analysis, progression free survival (PFS) differed by region (p = 0.006), stage (p = 0.009), sub-stage (p = 0.0005), and immunophenotype (p = 0.001). A multivariable Cox regression model showed that dogs in the western region had a significantly shorter PFS when compared to the south and east. CONCLUSION: PFS was significantly affected by stage, sub-stage and phenotype.
Authors: Kelly R Hume; Skylar R Sylvester; Lucia Borlle; Cheryl E Balkman; Angela L McCleary-Wheeler; Mary Pulvino; Carla Casulo; Jiyong Zhao Journal: Front Vet Sci Date: 2018-02-26
Authors: Joseph A Impellizeri; Alessandra Gavazza; Eliana Greissworth; Anna Crispo; Maurizio Montella; Gennaro Ciliberto; George Lubas; Luigi Aurisicchio Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2018-12-11 Impact factor: 5.531
Authors: Michael W Nolan; Olivia C Uzan; Noah A Green; Susan E Lana; B Duncan X Lascelles Journal: Vet Comp Oncol Date: 2022-03-21 Impact factor: 2.385