Genetic Alterations Detected by High-Resolution Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization in Microdissected HRS Cells Correlate with Treatment Outcome in Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract INTRODUCTION: Clinical decision making in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is primarily based on clinical variables in part because the scarcity of the malignant Hodgkin Reed Sternberg cells (HRS cells) hampers their molecular characterization. However, more recently investigation using laser capture microdissection has allowed a more detailed analysis of these cells. The objective of this study was to detect genomic alterations in HRS cells and correlate these changes with treatment outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We studied 53 patients with classical HL who were primarily treated at the BC Cancer Agency in Vancouver between 1984 and 2006. All received at least 4 cycles of polychemotherapy and stage-dependent radiotherapy if indicated. The cohort included 43 pretreatment samples and 10 biopsies taken at relapse. Treatment failure was defined as disease progression or relapse at any time (n=23), treatment success as absence of progression (n=30). Whole genome amplification (GenomePlex, Sigma) of pools from 500–1000 individually picked, microdissected HRS cells (Molecular Machines & Industries Cellcut with Nikon Eclipse TE2000-S microscope) was performed. 200 ng of amplified DNA was hybridized to 32k submegabase resolution BAC tiling arrays (SMRT) against sex-matched control-DNA. Scoring of array CGH data was performed by computational analysis using CNA-HMMer v0.1 (available at http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~sshah/acgh/) based on a Hidden Markov Model (HMM). Clustering of the 53 cases was performed using the K-medoids algorithm. Areas of amplification bias and known copy number polymorphisms were excluded. RESULTS: On average whole genome amplification generated 500-fold amplification of genomic DNA. The most frequent copy number alterations (>20% of cases) included gains of 2p14–24.3, 9p12–24.3, 12p11.21–13.33, 16p11.2–13.3, 17p11.2–13.3, 17q11.1–25.1, 19p12–13.3, 19q12–13.43, 20q11.21–13.32, 21q22.11–22.2 and losses of 1p36.31–36.33, 6q11.1–27, 7q22.1–36.3, 8p23.1–23.3, 11q22.3–25, 13q33.3–34 and Xq11.2–28. We also identified several small changes (<5 Mbs) such as loss of 1p36.32, 5q31.1 or 6q23.3 and amplification of 1q32.1, 8q24.21, 17q21.31 or 20q13.2. When comparing the different outcome groups we more frequently identified gains of chromosomal regions 12p13.31–13.33 and 16p12.1–13.3 in treatment failures (39% vs. 13%, Fisher exact p=0.05 and 43% vs. 10%, p=0.009), and losses of chromosomal regions 16q12.1–12.2 and 17p13.1–13.2 (17% vs. 0%, p=0.061 and 27% vs. 4%, p=0.061) were more frequently observed in treatment successes. We did not find significant differences of these changes between pretreatment (n=13) and relapse biopsies (n=10) of patients failing treatment. Using unsupervised analysis we identified a sample cluster of eight cases characterized by simultaneous occurrence of gains of 2p, 16p, 17p, 19q and losses of 6q. Notably, treatment failed in six of these cases. DISCUSSION: The combination of laser microdissection with subsequent WGA and high resolution array CGH provides a robust and sensitive platform for detecting chromosomal imbalances in microdissected HRS cells. We identified at high-resolution new and recurrent changes defining chromosomal regions that potentially harbor oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes crucial to the pathogenesis of HL. Furthermore, we found copy number alterations that are significantly associated with disease progression which, therefore, could serve as predictive factors for treatment outcome.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».