A Novel Genetics-Based Classification of Advanced Follicular Lymphoma Identifies Prognostic Subgroups Following Bendamustine-Rituximab Immunochemotherapy
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction Follicular lymphoma (FL) is the most common indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma and is considered incurable when presenting in advanced stage. When treatment is required, immunochemotherapy is typically associated with excellent disease control. However, most patients eventually experience disease relapse and ~10-20% experience histological transformation (HT), typically to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Progression of disease within 24 months (POD24) and HT are the 2 major events that dictate dismal patient outcomes. Available risk models are not able to reproducibly identify, at the time of diagnosis, these high-risk patients following different treatment regimens. We performed an analysis using genomic data to identify biologically and clinically unified subgroups within a real-world cohort of FL patients with advanced stage disease uniformly treated with bendamustine-rituximab (BR)- a modern standard-of-care regimen. Methods The patient cohort was identified in the British Columbia Cancer Lymphoid Cancer database with the following criteria: age 18 years or older, FL grades 1-3A, symptomatic advanced stage disease (Ann Arbor stages III-IV or not amenable to radiation) and received BR as first systemic therapy. DNA (n = 193 [whole genome (n = 51) and exome (n = 142)]) sequencing was performed on diagnostic biopsies alongside fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) for BCL2 rearrangement. Manta and GRIDSS2 were used to identify structural variants. Somatic point mutations were obtained using an ensemble of 4 variant callers. Selected coding variants, hotspots, mutations in aberrant somatic hypermutation (aSHM) targets, and BCL2 rearrangement status were converted to a binary matrix for non-negative matrix factorization (NMF) clustering. Battenberg was used to identify copy number alterations from WGS data. Sigprofiler was run on samples with WGS data to identify mutation signatures. Using the clustering results, a random forest (RF) classifier was trained to assign samples to genetic classes. Results Histone modifying genes were the most frequently mutated genes with KMT2D, CREBBP, and EZH2 mutated in 68%, 61%, and 22% of tumors, respectively. Rearrangements in BCL2 were detected in 90% of tumors using FISH and/or sequencing methods. Application of NMF clustering resolved an optimal solution with 4 genetic clusters. The first group was characterized by an increased burden of mutations at regions commonly affected by aSHM (aSHM cluster; 33% of the cohort). The second group was characterized by samples with missense mutations in the CREBBP lysine acetyltransferase (KAT) domain (C-KAT cluster; 23% of the cohort). The third group was enriched for EZH2 Y646 hotspot mutations and TNFRSF14 mutations (EZT cluster; 31% of the cohort). The final group had a paucity of recurrent driver mutations, including KMT2D (KWT cluster; 14% of the cohort). Although the NMF clustering did not include copy number, we identified copy number alterations associated with certain subgroups. Amplifications of the 1q region containing FCGR2B were enriched in the aSHM cluster. Amplifications in chromosome 7 containing genes associated with lymphoma, such as EZH2, were present in all clusters except the C-KAT cluster. Deletions of the 1p region containing TNFRSF14 were enriched among EZT tumors. Mutation signature analysis revealed higher levels of SBS84, a signature associated with AID activity, in the aSHM cluster. The m7-FLIPI risk score failed to predict POD24 in our cohort (16.5% vs. 20% POD24 rate in patients with low vs. high risk; P = 0.60). There was a significant difference in the POD24 proportions between the genetic subgroups (P < 0.001) with only one event in the EZT cluster (2%) compared with 29%, 24% and 8% in the aSHM, C-KAT and KWT clusters, respectively. Moreover, the EZT cluster had a lower cumulative rate of HT (5-year rate 2% compared with 18% aSHM, 16% C-KAT, and 16% KWT; log-rank P = 0.02 across the groups). Conclusions We identified 4 novel genetic subgroups of advanced stage FL with prognostic implications. In the context of front-line BR, patients in the EZT subgroup had excellent outcomes, including a very low rate of HT. Development of an RF classifier allows application to other patient cohorts to validate these clusters beyond symptomatic advanced stage disease and determine whether the clusters are predictive, identifying selective advantage to specific treatment regimens.
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 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».