Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Vet Comp Oncol. 2017 Sep;15(3):1029-1040. doi: 10.1111/vco.12244. Epub 2016 Jul 14.

Conformity and controversies in the diagnosis, staging and follow-up evaluation of canine nodal lymphoma: a systematic review of the last 15 years of published literature.

Author information

1
Centro Oncologico Veterinario, Bologna, Italy.
2
North Downs Specialist Referrals, Bletchingley, UK.
3
Department of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
4
Department of Comparative Biomedicine and Food Science, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
5
Department of Clinical Science and Services, Immune Regulation Laboratory, Royal Veterinary College, London, UK.
6
Queen Mother Hospital for Animals, Royal Veterinary College, Hatfield, UK.
7
Small Animal Clinical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
8
Dierenkliniek Sanimalia, Diepenbeek, Belgium.
9
Hospital VeterinĂ¡rio Berna, OnevetGroup, Lisboa, Portugal.
10
Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
11
Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
12
Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.

Abstract

Diagnostic methods used in the initial and post-treatment evaluation of canine lymphoma are heterogeneous and can vary within countries and institutions. Accurate reporting of clinical stage and response assessment is crucial in determining the treatment efficacy and predicting prognosis. This study comprises a systematic review of all available canine multicentric lymphoma studies published over 15 years. Data concerning diagnosis, clinical stage evaluation and response assessment procedures were extracted and compared. Sixty-three studies met the eligibility criteria. Fifty-five (87.3%) studies were non-randomized prospective or retrospective studies. The survey results also expose variations in diagnostic criteria and treatment response assessment in canine multicentric lymphoma. Variations in staging procedures performed and recorded led to an unquantifiable heterogeneity among patients in and between studies, making it difficult to compare treatment efficacies. Awareness of this inconsistency of procedure and reporting may help in the design of future clinical trials.

KEYWORDS:

dog; efficacy assessment; multicentric lymphoma; staging; systematic review

PMID:
27412493
DOI:
10.1111/vco.12244
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wiley
Loading ...
Support Center