- Future Students
- Current Students
- Faculty & Staff
Prevalence of neoplasia in llamas and alpacas (Oregon State University, 2001-2006).
|Title||Prevalence of neoplasia in llamas and alpacas (Oregon State University, 2001-2006).|
|Publication Type||Journal Article|
|Year of Publication||2007|
|Authors||Valentine BA, Martin JM|
|Journal||Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc|
|Date Published||2007 Mar|
|Keywords||Adenocarcinoma, Animal Diseases, Animals, Camelids, New World, Carcinoma, Female, Male, Neoplasms, Oregon, Prevalence|
Prevalence and type of neoplastic disease were determined in 551 camelid submissions (368 alpacas [Lama pacos], 180 llamas [Lama glama], and 3 cases in which species was not identified) over a 5-year period. Forty neoplasms were identified in 38 animals (6.9%). Prevalence of neoplasia in llamas was higher (11%) than in alpacas (4.9%). Mean age of camelids with neoplasia was 9.42 +/- 4.9 years. Mean age of alpacas with neoplasia (5.48 +/- 3.7 years) was significantly less than of llamas with neoplasia (12.53 +/- 3.2 years; P < 0.001). Cutaneous and mucocutaneous fibroma/fibropapilloma was most common (10 animals), followed by cutaneous and mucocutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (6 animals), disseminated lymphoma (5 animals), and fibrosarcoma (4 animals). Four of 5 animals with lymphoma were alpacas, aged 0.21 to 4 years. Lymphoma occurred in 1 aged llama (15 years). Disseminated carcinoma and adenocarcinoma occurred in 4 llamas and 2 alpacas, and included biliary (2), gastrointestinal (2), mammary gland (1), and unknown (1) origin. Mean age of camelids with any type of carcinoma or adenocarcinoma (12.36 +/- 2.8 years) was significantly greater than that of camelids with lymphoma (4.24 +/- 6.2 years; P = 0.02). Results indicate that neoplasia is relatively common in camelids and that there are differences between llamas and alpacas as regards prevalence of neoplasia, tumor types, and age at diagnosis.
|Alternate Journal||J. Vet. Diagn. Invest.|