Follicular lymphoma lacking the t(14;18)(q32;q21): identification of two disease subtypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The clinical and pathological features, including karyotype data and BCL2 protein expression pattern, of follicular lymphoma without a t(14;18)(q32;q21) have not been well defined. We have identified and conducted a detailed analysis of 50 cases with follicular lymphoma who lack the t(14;18). Fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis was used to exclude cases with a cryptic IGH/BCL2 rearrangement. BCL2 protein expression level was assessed by immunohistochemistry. The karyotypes were assessed for recurrent sites of structural rearrangement, duplications and deletions on a band-by-band basis, and compared with a large cohort of cases with t(14;18). A distinct pattern of chromosomal alterations was identified in the cases without t(14;18). BCL2 protein overexpression was detected in 33% of 49 tested cases. In this minority, the karyotypes frequently showed increased copies of chromosome 18. The majority of cases (67%) did not show BCL2 overexpression and were characterized prominently by the presence of t(3;14)(q27;q32), implying a role for BCL6. Follicular lymphomas that lack a t(14;18) were segregated into two subgroups with distinct cytogenetic, phenotypic and possibly clinical features: one with BCL2 protein overexpression not related to an IGH/BCL2 rearrangement and a second without BCL2 overexpression. Objective identification of BCL2 expression level as well as BCL2 and BCL6 status by cytogenetic or FISH analysis has potential clinical utility and may yield insights into alternative genetic mechanisms associated with B-cell lymphomas with a follicular growth pattern.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".