MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789328464 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwy009.262

A262 COLONIC MUCOSA-ASSOCIATED LYMPHOID TISSUE (MALT) LYMPHOMA, A RARE OCCURENCE: A LITERATURE REVIEW AND CASE SERIES

2018· review· en· W2789328464 on OpenAlexaff
Melissa Mei Hsia Chan, Alaa Rostom, Carolyn Faught, Chantal Dubé

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal and Anal Carcinomas
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMALT lymphomaMedicineLymphomaMucosa-associated lymphoid tissueLymphatic systemEndoscopic mucosal resectionGastroenterologyInternal medicineMarginal zone B-cell lymphomaBiopsyColonoscopyPathologyMarginal zoneB cellEndoscopyCancerColorectal cancerImmunologyAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extranodal mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphoma is a clonal B-cell neoplasm that develops in the marginal zone of lymphoid follicles. They make up about 5% of all non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. The most common extranodal site for MALT lymphomas is the stomach, followed by the small bowel. Colonic MALT lymphomas are rare and, as a result, there are no guidelines for the workup and management of these lymphomas. This case series aims to review the literature of existing cases of colonic MALT lymphoma and to share our experience with diagnosis, workup and management of colonic MALT lymphoma. A literature search was conducted using an advanced PUBMED search. Charts of 4 identified cases diagnosed in 2016 - 2017 were reviewed. A literature review of colonic MALT lymphomas revealed a few dozen cases, either isolated or in conjunction with MALT in the upper GI tract. Presenting symptoms included abdominal pain, gastrointestinal bleeding, positive fecal occult blood test and weight loss. Workup included colonoscopy and biopsy, endoscopic assessment of the upper GI tract to assess for other foci of MALT lymphoma as well as testing for Helicobacter pylori and celiac testing, which have both been associated with gastric MALT lymphomas. Endoscopically they can appear as a polyp or mass with a smooth surface with changes in vascular pattern, but can be ulcerated if more advanced. The management of colonic MALT lymphoma varies. Patients with limited disease were often treated with radiotherapy, surgical resection or endoscopic resection via endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection. Patients with multiple foci of disease or lymph node involvement were usually treated with chemotherapy and/or rituximab. There have been reports of resolution of the colonic MALT lymphoma after H. pylori treatment, even in patients who were H. pylori negative. We present our experience with the diagnosis and management of 4 cases of colonic MALT lymphoma. This includes cases of asymptomatic colonic MALT lymphoma diagnosed on routine colonoscopy which were treated conservatively with close monitoring, and a case with a concurrent gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) in the stomach. In the latter case, the MALT lymphoma was treated with chemotherapy and rituximab with good response, and the GIST was surgically resected. Colonic MALT lymphomas are considered to be rare; however, the diagnosis of 4 cases at our institution in the last 2 years would suggest otherwise. Therefore, endoscopists should be familiar with this condition and its endoscopic features. Patients with asymptomatic, limited stage colonic MALT lymphoma can be managed conservatively. Although we report one case of colonic MALT lymphoma occurring concurrently with a gastric GIST, there is no clear association between the two conditions. None

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicColorectal and Anal CarcinomasFrench-language works237,207