DOI 10.1097/qad.0000000000002744
A comparative study of classic and HIV-viremic and aviremic AIDS Kaposi sarcoma.
Аннотация
BACKGROUND
Kaposi sarcoma in people living with HIV (PLHIV) is the most common AIDS-associated malignancy. There is increased interest in Kaposi sarcoma in PLHIV with controlled HIV viremia.
OBJECTIVES
To describe Kaposi sarcoma occurring in PLHIV despite virological control and to compare their clinical presentations with viremic AIDS-Kaposi sarcoma (AIDS-KS) and classic Kaposi sarcoma (CKS).
METHODS
This was a monocentric retrospective study, including all Kaposi sarcoma patients registered between the 1 January of 2000 and 31 December 2017 in a comprehensive data bank for all cancers in the Hérault region, South of France. AIDS-KS were also described using chart reviews from the Infectious diseases Department, which followed more than 90% of PLHIV from the same region. We defined aviremic AIDS-KS as Kaposi sarcoma occurring in persons taking HAART with a HIV viral load less than 50 copies for more than 12 months. We compared clinical characteristics of persons with aviremic AIDS-KS, viremic AIDS-KS and CKS, using the Kriegel score and number and topography of skin lesions, and presence of lymphedema.
RESULTS
We retrieved 187 Kaposi sarcoma cases, of which 12 occurred in PLHIV with aviremic AIDS-KS. Kriegel score stage I was found in 10 (83%) of the aviremic AIDS-KS, 34 (68%) of CKS and 38 (58.4%) of viremic AIDS-KS cases, with similar clinical presentations between aviremic AIDS-KS and CKS groups, and viremic AIDS-KS persons having more aggressive presentations. One person with aviremic AIDS-KS had visceral involvement.
CONCLUSION
We showed that Kaposi sarcoma in PLHIV with controlled viremia were generally indolent, similarly to CKS. Visceral involvement is, however, possible.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.