MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2979296208 · doi:10.1182/blood.v124.21.3016.3016

Accurate Diagnosis of Aggressive B Cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphomas Using Gene Expression Profiling of Formalin-Fixed, Paraffin-Embedded Tissues

2014· article· en· W2979296208 sur OpenAlexaffabout
David W. Scott, George W. Wright, Mickey Williams, Jason Lih, Elaine S. Jaffe, Andreas Rosenwald, Elı́as Campo, Wing C. Chan, Joseph M. Connors, Erlend B. Smeland, Rita M. Braziel, German Ott, Jan Delabie, Dennis D. Weisenburger, James R. Cook, Timothy C. Greiner, Kai Fu, William D. Walsh, Randy D. Gascoyne, Louis M. Staudt, Lisa M. Rimsza

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Établissements canadiensSpinal Cord Injury BCUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGene expression profilingLymphomaPathologyGene expressionBiologyMedicineGeneCancer researchGenetics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Currently, diagnosis of aggressive B cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas (agg-B-NHL) uses a varying combination of morphology, immunophenotyping, cytogenetics, and/or other molecular techniques resulting in a fragmented, confusing diagnostic system. We sought to develop a multi-analyte gene expression signature assay that could consolidate the diagnostic process into a single platform to improve standardization and accuracy. Methods: We used formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue biopsies, qualified by an expert Hematopathology review panel, tumor content of ≥60%, and confirmed B cell immunophenotype. Diagnostic categories included diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) including the activated B cell-like (ABC), germinal center B cell-like (GCB) subtypes, unclassifiable (UNC) DLBCL, primary mediastinal B cell lymphoma (PMBCL), Burkitt lymphoma (BL), and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). Using our previous GEP data, diagnostic signatures, nCounter system (Nanostring, Seattle, WA), and employing published procedures (Scott et al, Blood 2014); we designed probes to 800 genes with utility in distinguishing between these pathological entities. The training cohort comprised 107 unique cases, whose FFPET biopsies were independently assayed at the Molecular Characterization Laboratory, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research (Frederick, MD) and the Centre for Lymphoid Cancer, BC Cancer Agency (Vancouver, BC). The resulting algorithm was locked down and applied to an independent cohort of 199 cases. The nucleic acids from FFPET biopsies from these cases were extracted and run across the two independent laboratories with 83 cases run at both laboratories to assess inter-laboratory performance. The “gold standard” by which the Nanostring classification was compared was based on Affymetrix gene expression profiling of matched frozen biopsies in the cases of ABC, GCB, and UNC DLBCL (Lenz et al. NEJM 2008) and on the pathological diagnosis by the Hematopathology review panel in the cases of BL, MCL, and PMBCL. The use of human tissues and clinical data for this study was approved by the University of Arizona Institutional Review Board in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Results: The final locked algorithm consisted of 297 gene probes including 47 housekeeping genes. Thirty-six cases from the training cohort were run again on the new lot of Nanostring code set to allow for cross code set calibration of the assay. The laboratory procedure and algorithm, together termed the "Lymph5Cx" test, consists of a hierarchical series of pair-wise comparisons. In the independent validation set, 257/282 assays (91.1%) yielded gene expression data of sufficient quality (total of 185 of the 199 cases). A classification summary is given in the Table below. In this cohort, 136 cases (82%) were correctly assigned while 11 cases (6.6%) were assigned incorrect diagnoses as follows: 6 BL assigned to GCB, 1 GCB labeled a PMBCL, and 4 PMBCL assigned to DLBCL subtypes. The Lymph5Cx test included categories of indeterminate results between two diagnostic entities and were declared borderline, as indicated in the Table. The agreement between the 2 laboratory sites was 71/72 (99%) of cases that yielded adequate gene expression data at both sites. Conclusions: The Lymph5Cx test was robust and able to discriminate the often clinically difficult diagnostic categories of agg-B-NHL using a single methodology for cases with histologic and immunophenotypic features of an agg-B-NHL. Misclassification errors were low, suggesting that this test would be useful adjunct to current diagnostic methods. In addition, targetable pathways, as well as genes associated with known prognostic signatures in DLBCL (stromal) and MCL (proliferation) were quantified. Investigation into these latter aspects is on-going. Gene expression signature assays have become a useful clinical and research tool in the on-going area of precision therapeutics based on highly-defined molecular entities. Table # cases % accurate % borderline % error ABC 26 76.9% 23.1% 0.0% GCB 27 88.9% 7.4% 3.7% BL 48 68.8% 19.8% 11.5% PMBL 30 80.0% 6.7% 13.3% MCL 34 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Disclosures Scott: Nanostring: The author is a potential inventor on a patent applicaiton using Nanostring technology for a different assay, which has been licensed from the NIH by Nanostring Patents & Royalties. Wright:Nanostring: The author is a potential inventor on a patent applicaiton using Nanostring technology for a different assay, which has been licensed from the NIH by Nanostring Patents & Royalties. Williams:Nanostring: The author is a potential inventor on a patent applicaiton using Nanostring technology for a different assay, which has been licensed from the NIH by Nanostring Patents & Royalties. Lih:Nanostring: The author is a potential inventor on a patent applicaiton using Nanostring technology for a different assay, which has been licensed from the NIH by Nanostring Patents & Royalties. Jaffe:Nanostring: The author is a potential inventor on a patent applicaiton using Nanostring technology for a different assay, which has been licensed from the NIH by Nanostring Patents & Royalties. Rosenwald:Nanostring: Research Funding, The author is a potential inventor on a patent applicaiton using Nanostring technology for a different assay, which has been licensed from the NIH by Nanostring Patents & Royalties. Campo:Nanostring: Research Funding, The author is a potential inventor on a patent applicaiton using Nanostring technology for a different assay, which has been licensed from the NIH by Nanostring Patents & Royalties. Chan:Nanostring: The author is a potential inventor on a patent applicaiton using Nanostring technology for a different assay, which has been licensed from the NIH by Nanostring Patents & Royalties. Connors:Nanostring: The author is a potential inventor on a patent applicaiton using Nanostring technology for a different assay, which has been licensed from the NIH by Nanostring Patents & Royalties. Smeland:Nanostring: The author is a potential inventor on a patent applicaiton using Nanostring technology for a different assay, which has been licensed from the NIH by Nanostring Patents & Royalties. Braziel:Nanostring: Research Funding, The author is a potential inventor on a patent applicaiton using Nanostring technology for a different assay, which has been licensed from the NIH by Nanostring Patents & Royalties. Ott:Nanostring: The author is a potential inventor on a patent applicaiton using Nanostring technology for a different assay, which has been licensed from the NIH by Nanostring Patents & Royalties. Delabie:Nanostring: Research Funding, The author is a potential inventor on a patent applicaiton using Nanostring technology for a different assay, which has been licensed from the NIH by Nanostring Patents & Royalties. Weisenburger:Nanostring: The author is a potential inventor on a patent applicaiton using Nanostring technology for a different assay, which has been licensed from the NIH by Nanostring Patents & Royalties. Cook:Nanostring: Research Funding, The author is a potential inventor on a patent applicaiton using Nanostring technology for a different assay, which has been licensed from the NIH by Nanostring Patents & Royalties. Greiner:Nanostring: The author is a potential inventor on a patent applicaiton using Nanostring technology for a different assay, which has been licensed from the NIH by Nanostring Patents & Royalties. Fu:Nanostring: Research Funding, The author is a potential inventor on a patent applicaiton using Nanostring technology for a different assay, which has been licensed from the NIH by Nanostring Patents & Royalties. Walsh:Nanostring: The author is a potential inventor on a patent application using Nanostring technology for a different assay, which has been licensed from the NIH by Nanostring Patents & Royalties. Gascoyne:Nanostring: Research Funding, The author is a potential inventor on a patent applicaiton using Nanostring technology for a different assay, which has been licensed from the NIH by Nanostring Patents & Royalties. Staudt:Nanostring: The author is a potential inventor on a patent applicaiton using Nanostring technology for a different assay, which has been licensed from the NIH by Nanostring Patents & Royalties. Rimsza:Nanostring: Research Funding, The author is a potential inventor on a patent applicaiton using Nanostring technology for a different assay, which has been licensed from the NIH by Nanostring Patents & Royalties.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: Expérimental (laboratoire)
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,001
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,006

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,018
Tête enseignante GPT0,277
Écart entre enseignants0,259 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2014
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→Travaux en français237 207→