International Journal of Hematology

, Volume 110, Issue 1, pp 3–10 | Cite as

JSH practical guidelines for hematological malignancies, 2018: II. Lymphoma—overview

  • Ken OmachiEmail author
Guide Line

The number of patients with newly diagnosed lymphoma in Japan was reported to be 24,778 in 2011. The prevalence has been increasing over the years, from 5.5 per 100,000 population in 1985 to 8.9 in 1995, 13.3 in 2005, and 19.4 in 2011.

It is more common in men than women (ratio of about 3:2) and incidence peaks in the 70–79 age group [1]. It is broadly classified histologically into Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), but the vast majority are NHL, and HL only account for approximately 5–10% of all lymphomas in Japan

Essential elements for diagnosis and treatment plan determination

Medical history

The patient’s past medical history, diseases for which they are currently being treated, comorbidities, initial symptoms, timing of symptom onset, general symptoms (e.g., fever, weight loss, and night sweats), and place of birth if necessary should be determined by medical interview and recorded.

Physical findings

The following should be evaluated by physical examination and...



  1. 1.
    Center for Cancer Control and Information Services of the National Cancer Center:
  2. 2.
    Jsffe ES. Introduction and over view of the classification of lymphoid neoplasms. In: Swerdlow SH, et al., editors. WHO classification of tumours of haematopoietic and lymphoid tissues. Lyon: IARC; 2017. p. 190–8 (Textbook).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chan JK. The new World Health Organization classification of lymphomas: the past, the present and the future. Hematol Oncol. 2001;19(4):129–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carbone PP, et al. Report of the committee on Hodgkin’s disease staging classification. Cancer Res. 1971;31(11):1860–1.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cheson BD, et al. Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: the Lugano classification. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(27):3059–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rohatiner A, et al. Report on a workshop convened to discuss the pathological and staging classifications of gastrointestinal tract lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 1994;5(5):397–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shipp MA. A predictive model for aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The International Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Prognostic Factors Project. N Engl J Med. 1993;329(14):987–94 (3iA).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhou Z, et al. An enhanced International Prognostic Index (NCCN-IPI) for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated in the rituximab era. Blood. 2014;123(6):837–42 (3iA)..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Solal-Céligny P, et al. Follicular lymphoma international prognostic index. Blood. 2004;104(5):1258–65 (3iA).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hasenclever D, et al. A prognostic score for advanced Hodgkin’s disease. International Prognostic Factors Project on Advanced Hodgkin’s Disease. N Engl J Med. 1998;339(21):1506–14 (3iiiDiii).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Federico M, et al. Follicular lymphoma international prognostic index 2: a new prognostic index for follicular lymphoma developed by the international follicular lymphoma prognostic factor project. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(27):4555–62 (3iDiii).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cheson BD, et al. Report of an International Workshop to standardize response criteria for non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17(4):1244–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cheson BD, et al. Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(5):579–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Juweid ME, et al. Response assessment of aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma by integrated International Workshop criteria (IWC) and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET). J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(21):4652–61 (3iiiDiii).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Barrington SF, et al. Role of imaging in the staging and response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the International Conference on Malignant Lymphomas Imaging Working Group. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(27):3048–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weeks JC, et al. Value of follow-up procedures in patients with large-cell lymphoma who achieve a complete remission. J Clin Oncol. 1991;9(7):1196–203 (3iiiD).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Oh YK, et al. Stages I-III follicular lymphoma: role of CT of the abdomen and pelvis in follow-up studies. Radiology. 1999;210(2):483–6 (3iiiD).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liedtke M, et al. Surveillance imaging during remission identifies a group of patients with more favorable aggressive NHL at time of relapse: a retrospective analysis of a uniformly-treated patient population. Ann Oncol. 2006;17(6):909–13 (3iiiA).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jerusalem G, et al. Early detection of relapse by whole-body positron emission tomography in the follow-up of patients with Hodgkin’s disease. Ann Oncol. 2003;14(1):123–30 (3iiiD).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zinzani PL, et al. Role of fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography scan in the follow-up of lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(11):1781–7 (3iiiD).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hiniker SM, et al. Value of surveillance studies for patients with stage I to II diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in the rituximab era. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2015;92(1):99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Huntington SF, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of routine surveillance imaging of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in first remission. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(13):1467–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society of Hematology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Hematology/OncologyTokai University School of MedicineKanagawaJapan

Personalised recommendations