Genetic risk of chronic lymphocytic leukemia: a tale of two cities
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) has one of the highest familial risks of any cancer, with fi rst-degree relatives having an 8.5-fold increase in their risk of the disease [1]. CLL families are defi ned as having two or more blood-related family members with CLL, and a familial CLL case is a person with a blood-related relative with CLL. Th e genetic basis of familial CLL is not yet fully defi ned. Currently, 25 inherited genetic variants have been identifi ed to be associated with risk of CLL through well-designed genomewide association studies [2]. Th ese genetic variants are common, with allele frequencies greater than 5%. A number of these variants are mapped in or near genes involved in apoptosis, a key biological pathway. Although these variants themselves do not cause CLL, they provide direction for future functional studies. Taken together, these variants explain ∼ 17% of the genetic heritability of incident CLL, and mathematical models suggest that more genetically related variants are yet to be identifi ed with larger studies or studies using newer technology. Th ese genetic variants may include rare variants, epigenomic changes or structural variants. Of interest, the currently known 25 variants are associated with CLL risk regardless of the familial status of the CLL cases. Th at is, familial CLL cases improve the ability to locate the genetic variants but the known genetic variants are not specifi c to familial CLL risk. As a result, the population risk of CLL refl ects a major genetic component rather than an environmental one, given the limited evidence for a role for environmental factors in CLL risk. In this issue of Leukemia and Lymphoma , Mak et al . [3] report their incidence fi ndings of CLL in people of Chinese descent living in the Canadian province of British Columbia (BC) and Hong Kong during the period 1983 – 2008. It is well known that CLL incidence varies by ethnicity, with the highest incidence seen in individuals of European descent and the lowest rate among Asians [4]. Prior migration studies [5,6] have shown that Asians retain the lower CLL incidence rates characteristic of their country of origin when they migrate to the West. Th e study by Mak et al . supports these fi ndings using two population-based cancer registries and census data from BC and Hong Kong. Th e authors identifi ed all cases of CLL in these regions during the period of investigation. Th e ethnicity of the Chinese BC cases was verifi ed from individual patient charts. Th e number of individuals with CLL who were non-Chinese BC, Chinese BC or Hong Kong cases were compared to their respective census data, resulting in clear diff erences in incidence between the Chinese and non-Chinese populations and a similarity of incidence between the BC-Chinese and HK-Chinese populations. Th e validity of these conclusions could be limited because of structural problems with this study. A minor concern is that the authors did not specify what ethnic groups were included in the non-Chinese BC cases of CLL, but given the ethnic distribution of BC, a majority would be expected to be of European descent. Of greater concern is the authors ’ failure to consider the several major changes in the methods of detection and diagnostic defi nitions of CLL during the period of investigation of their study. Th e current defi nition of CLL as the presence of a circulating clonal population of B-cell lymphocytes of more than 5 10 9 cells/L that have a characteristic immunophenotype [7] dates to 2008, and would thus not have been used for the majority of cases reported in this study. Th e changes in diagnostic methods and criteria for CLL are the most likely cause for the apparent increase in the incidence of CLL over time, regardless of ethnic group or age group in this study, which is likely erroneous. Although this is a major fl aw of the manuscript, it does not detract from the take-home message of supporting a strong genetic component to the risk of CLL for all patients with the disease.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».