Table 1.
Case no. |
Age ⁄ Sex | Pattern(s)* | Treatment(s) | Response | Outcome | Follow-up (months) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 36 ⁄ M | C ⁄ D | – | – | – | – |
2 | 49 ⁄ M | A | – | – | – | – |
3 | 77 ⁄ F | C ⁄ E | R-CEOP | – | Dead | 5 |
4 | 55 ⁄ M | D | ABVD ⁄ RT | – | Dead | 1 |
5 | 62 ⁄ M | A ⁄ D | RICE | – | Dead | 18 |
6 | 46 ⁄ M | E ⁄ A | R-CHOP | – | Alive | 3 |
7 | 68 ⁄ M | D ⁄ E | ABVD | Partial response | Dead | 0.7 |
8 | 26 ⁄ M | C ⁄ D | ABVD ⁄ EPOCH-R ⁄ RT ⁄ BMT | No response | Alive | 60 |
Cases were classified on the basis of the patterns of NLHPL described by Fan et al., denoting predominant/less predominant pattern.
ABVD, Doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine and dacarbazine; EPOCH-R, etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, and doxorubicin plus rituximab; R-CEOP, rituximab with cisplastin, etoposide, cyclophosphamide and vincristine; R-CHOP, rituximab with cyclophosphamide, adriamycin, vincristine, and prednisone with rituximab; RICE, rituximab, ifosfamide, carboplatin and etoposide; RT, radiotherapy; BMT, bone marrow transplant.