| Literature DB >> 31023278 |
Katherine Antel1, Carly Levetan2, Zainab Mohamed3, Vernon J Louw4, Jenna Oosthuizen4, Gary Maartens5, Estelle Verburgh4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the pathway to diagnosis of lymphoma in Sub-Saharan Africa, despite the increased risk of lymphoma in people living with HIV (PLHIV). The challenges of diagnosis in this setting include diagnostic confusion with extrapulmonary tuberculosis (EPTB), which commonly causes lymphadenopathy in PLHIV.Entities:
Keywords: Diagnosis; FNAC (fine-needle aspiration); HIV; Lymphoma; Tuberculosis
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31023278 PMCID: PMC6485177 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-019-5586-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Fig. 1Type and subtype of lymphoma
Sample characteristics and disease presenting features
| All ( | HIV - ( | HIV + ( | NHL ( | HL ( | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | ||||||||||||
| Male | 94 | 58% | 72 | 62% | 22 | 47% | 0.07 | 70 | 57% | 24 | 59% | |
| Female | 69 | 42% | 44 | 38% | 25 | 53% | 52 | 43% | 17 | 41% | 0.90 | |
| Age | ||||||||||||
| Median (IQR) | 48 (33–59) | 54 (37–62) | 38 (30–47) | < 0.01 | 51 (38–61) | 35 (28–45) | < 0.01 | |||||
| < 18 | 3 | 2% | 3 | 3% | 0 | 0% | 2 | 2% | 1 | 2% | ||
| 18–39 | 57 | 35% | 30 | 26% | 27 | 57% | 34 | 28% | 23 | 56% | ||
| 40–59 | 66 | 40% | 46 | 40% | 20 | 43% | 52 | 43% | 14 | 34% | ||
| 60–79 | 35 | 21% | 35 | 30% | 0 | 0% | 32 | 26% | 3 | 7% | ||
| 80 or older | 2 | 1% | 2 | 2% | 0 | 0% | 2 | 2% | 0 | 0% | ||
| Race | ||||||||||||
| Mixed ancestry | 81 | 50% | 77 | 66% | 4 | 9% | < 0.01 | 62 | 51% | 19 | 46% | |
| Black | 59 | 36% | 18 | 16% | 41 | 87% | 40 | 33% | 19 | 46% | ||
| White | 23 | 14% | 21 | 18% | 2 | 4% | 20 | 16% | 3 | 7% | 0.18 | |
| Performance score | ||||||||||||
| ECOG 0 | 19 | 12% | 14 | 12% | 5 | 11% | 0.97 | 11 | 9% | 8 | 20% | |
| ECOG 1 | 74 | 45% | 54 | 47% | 20 | 43% | 53 | 43% | 21 | 51% | ||
| ECOG 2 | 27 | 17% | 19 | 16% | 8 | 17% | 21 | 17% | 6 | 15% | ||
| ECOG 3 | 32 | 20% | 22 | 19% | 10 | 21% | 27 | 22% | 5 | 12% | ||
| ECOG 4 | 11 | 7% | 7 | 6% | 4 | 9% | 10 | 8% | 1 | 2% | 0.17 | |
| Stage of disease at presentation | ||||||||||||
| Stage 1 | 23 | 14% | 18 | 16% | 5 | 11% | 0.23 | 22 | 18% | 1 | 2% | 0.04 |
| Stage 2 | 35 | 21% | 27 | 23% | 8 | 17% | 28 | 23% | 7 | 17% | ||
| Stage 3 | 19 | 12% | 10 | 9% | 9 | 19% | 13 | 11% | 6 | 15% | ||
| Stage 4 | 86 | 53% | 61 | 53% | 25 | 53% | 59 | 48% | 27 | 66% | ||
| Bone marrow involved at diagnosis | 41 | 25% | 23 | 20% | 18 | 38% | 0.03 | 23 | 19% | 18 | 44% | < 0.01 |
| Clinical presentation and investigations | ||||||||||||
| Peripheral lymphadenopathy | 104 | 64% | 73 | 63% | 31 | 66% | 0.72 | 69 | 57% | 35 | 85% | < 0.01 |
| B Symptoms | 96 | 59% | 66 | 57% | 30 | 64% | 0.42 | 66 | 54% | 30 | 73% | 0.03 |
| Diagnosis made on bone marrow | 10 | 6% | 5 | 4% | 5 | 11% | 0.66 | 4 | 3% | 6 | 15% | 0.23 |
| On TB therapy at diagnosis | 16 | 10% | 4 | 3% | 12 | 26% | < 0.01 | 5 | 4% | 11 | 27% | < 0.01 |
| FNAC | ||||||||||||
| Performed | 63 | 39% | 44 | 38% | 19 | 40% | 0.77 | 39 | 32% | 24 | 59% | < 0.01 |
| Not performed | 100 | 61% | 72 | 62% | 28 | 60% | 83 | 68% | 17 | 41% | ||
Median and mean patient, diagnostic, referral and treatment time intervals
| Patient interval (wks) | Healthcare practitioner interval (wks) | Referral interval (wks) | Treatment interval (wks) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | Median | p | n | Median | p | n | Median | p | n | Median | p | |
| Sex | ||||||||||||
| Female | 57 | 2 | 0.14 | 60 | 8 | 0.85 | 65 | 2 | 0.56 | 65 | 2 | 0.97 |
| Male | 71 | 4 | 73 | 7 | 87 | 2 | 91 | 1 | ||||
| Age | ||||||||||||
| < 50 yr | 75 | 4 | 0.59 | 79 | 6 | 0.26 | 88 | 2 | 0.54 | 88 | 2 | 0.27 |
| ≧ 50 | 53 | 3 | 54 | 7 | 64 | 2 | 68 | 1 | ||||
| HIV | ||||||||||||
| Negative | 91 | 4 | 0.41 | 93 | 7 | 0.58 | 105 | 2 | 0.20 | 112 | 1 | 0.29 |
| Positive | 37 | 2 | 40 | 8 | 47 | 2 | 44 | 2 | ||||
| Lymphoma type | ||||||||||||
| NHL | 96 | 3 | 0.15 | 99 | 6 | 0.01 | 112 | 2 | 0.64 | 117 | 1 | < 0.01 |
| HL | 32 | 4 | 34 | 12 | 40 | 2 | 39 | 3 | ||||
| Performance score | ||||||||||||
| ECOG 0 | 17 | 4 | 0.43 | 17 | 6 | 0.43 | 18 | 3 | 0.52 | 18 | 2 | 0.01 |
| ECOG 1 | 57 | 4 | 59 | 8 | 71 | 2 | 73 | 2 | ||||
| ECOG 2 | 19 | 2 | 21 | 9 | 23 | 2 | 27 | 1 | ||||
| ECOG 3 | 25 | 2 | 25 | 7 | 29 | 2 | 28 | 1 | ||||
| ECOG 4 | 10 | 2 | 11 | 5 | 11 | 2 | 10 | 2 | ||||
| FNAC | ||||||||||||
| Not performed | 76 | 3 | 0.38 | 78 | 5 | 0.04 | 91 | 2 | 0.86 | 94 | 1 | 0.08 |
| Performed | 52 | 4 | 55 | 9 | 61 | 2 | 62 | 2 | ||||
| Stage | ||||||||||||
| Early-stage | 45 | 3 | 0.66 | 47 | 4 | 0.02 | 56 | 2 | 0.12 | 58 | 2 | 0.16 |
| Late-stage | 83 | 4 | 86 | 9 | 96 | 2 | 98 | 1 | ||||
| Clinical characteristics | ||||||||||||
| No peripheral lymph nodes | 42 | 2 | 0.03 | 43 | 6 | 0.24 | 52 | 2 | 0.13 | 57 | 1 | 0.02 |
| Peripheral lymph nodes | 86 | 4 | 90 | 7 | 100 | 2 | 99 | 2 | ||||
| No B symptoms | 57 | 3 | 0.17 | 58 | 4 | 0.08 | 64 | 2 | 0.22 | 66 | 2 | 0.46 |
| B Symptoms present | 71 | 4 | 75 | 9 | 88 | 2 | 90 | 2 | ||||
| Not on TB therapy | 115 | 4 | 0.82 | 118 | 6 | 0.28 | 136 | 2 | 0.72 | 141 | 2 | 0.45 |
| On TB therapy at diagnosis | 13 | 3 | 15 | 10 | 16 | 2 | 15 | 2 | ||||
| iagnosis made on lymph node | 120 | 4 | 0.02 | 125 | 7 | 0.75 | 144 | 2 | 0.10 | 147 | 1 | 0.44 |
| Diagnosis made on bone marrow | 8 | 1 | 8 | 9 | 8 | 1 | 9 | 2 | ||||
Fig. 2Median time to lymphoma diagnosis and treatment
Factors associated with diagnostic delay in multivariable logistic regression
| OR (95% CI) | ||
|---|---|---|
| FNAC performed (vs not performed) | 1.4 (0.7–3.1) | 0.38 |
| Late-stage (vs early-stage) | 2.3 (1.1–5.2) | 0.04 |
| HL (vs NHL) | 3.0 (1.1–8.0) | 0.03 |
| Emergency chemotherapy (vs non-emergency) | 0.6 (0.2–1.5) | 0.24 |
| HIV positive (vs negative) | 0.9 (0.3–2.2) | 0.76 |
| Age ≥ 50 yr. (vs < 50 yr) | 1.6 (0.7–4.0) | 0.30 |
All the variables in the model are given above
FNAC Fine-needle aspiration and cytology, HL Hodgkin lymphoma, NHL Non-Hodgkin lymphoma
Fig. 3OS by type of lymphoma and HIV status
Predictors (with hazard ratios (HR)) of Overall Survival (OS) and 2-year survival by multivariable Cox regression analysis
| OS HR (95% CI) | 2 yr-survival HR (95% CI) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Late-stage (vs early-stage) | 2.0 (1.1–3.8) | 0.03 | 2.0 (1.2–3.4) | < 0.01 |
| NHL (vs HL) | 2.5 (1.1–5.0) | 0.05 | 3.1 (1.5–6.3) | 0.05 |
| Emergency chemotherapy (vs non-emergency) | 1.2 (0.6–2.3) | 0.70 | 1.7 (0.9–2.9) | 0.12 |
| HIV positive (vs negative) | 4.2 (1.9–9.4) | < 0.01 | 5.0 (2.0–12.4) | 0.01 |
| Performance status (vs ECOG = 0) | ||||
| ECOG 1 | 1.8 (0.5–6.3) | 0.35 | 1.3 (0.5–3.1) | 0.73 |
| ECOG 2 | 3.7 (1.0–14.6) | 0.06 | 2.5 (0.9–7.1) | 0.09 |
| ECOG 3 | 7.6 (2.1–27.4) | < 0.01 | 6.8 (2.6–17.8) | < 0.01 |
| ECOG 4 | 4.5 (1.1–17.6) | 0.03 | 6.2 (2.0–18.7) | < 0.01 |
| Diagnostic delay | 0.6 (0.3–1.0) | 0.06 | 0.8 (0.5–1.3) | 0.34 |
| Age ≥ 50 (vs < 50) | 4.1 (1.9–8.9) | < 0.01 | 1.7 (1.0–2.6) | 0.03 |
All the variables in the model are given above
HL Hodgkin lymphoma, NHL Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, ECOG Eastern European Oncology Group
Fig. 4Existing literature on the time to diagnosis and treatment of lymphoma