ArticlePloS one2024
Incidence and survival of second primary non-Hodgkin lymphoma: A Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-based cohort study.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to investigate patient survival and factors associated with survival in second primary non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) compared with the first primary NHL.
methodsThe retrospective cohort study used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database between 2000 and 2014. Demographic characteristics, histological types, Ann Arbor stage, and treatment information were collected. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for factors associated with overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) in the first and second primary NHLs.
resultsOf 318,168 cases followed for 5 years, 299,248 patients developed the first primary NHL and 18,920 patients developed the second primary NHL. This study identified a rising incidence of first and second primary NHL from 2000 to 2014. For the second primary NHL, the OS risk was higher when compared to the first primary NHL (HR: 1.13, 95% CI: 1.11 to 1.15, P <0.001). Risk factors that negatively affected OS in the first primary NHL included being male, over 40 years of age, certain marital statuses, specific histological types, and advanced disease stages. In contrast, being of White race and having histological types such as Follicular Lymphoma (FL), Marginal Zone Lymphoma (MZL), and mantle B-cell NHL were associated with better OS outcomes. Treatments like surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy were associated with a lower risk of OS and CSS in the first primary NHL. For the second primary NHL, the detrimental risk factors were similar but also included being over the age of 60. Certain histological types showed a lower OS risk relative to diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma (DLBCL). While surgery and chemotherapy were beneficial for OS, radiation therapy did not improve survival in second primary NHL cases. Notably, undergoing chemotherapy for the first primary cancer increased the OS risk in the second primary NHL, whereas surgery and radiation seemed to offer a protective effect against OS risk in the second primary NHL (all P <0.05).
conclusionOur findings emphasize the need for tailored strategies in managing the second primary NHL, given the distinct survival patterns and risk factor profiles compared to the first primary NHL. Future research should aim to further elucidate these differences to improve prognosis and treatment approaches for second primary NHL patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.