High microvessel density determines a poor outcome in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with rituximab plus chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma is a clinically and molecularly heterogeneous disease. Gene expression profiling studies have shown that the tumor microenvironment affects survival and that the angiogenesis-related signature is prognostically unfavorable. The contribution of histopathological microvessel density to survival in diffuse large B-cell lymphomas treated with immunochemotherapy remains unknown. The purpose of this study is to assess the prognostic impact of histopathological microvessel density in two independent series of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with immunochemotherapy. DESIGN AND METHODS: One hundred and forty-seven patients from the Leukemia Lymphoma Molecular Profiling Project (training series) and 118 patients from the Catalan Lymphoma-Study group-GELCAB (validation cohort) were included in the study. Microvessels were immunostained with CD31 and quantified with a computerized image analysis system. The stromal scores previously defined in 110 Leukemia Lymphoma Molecular Profiling Project cases were used to analyze correlations with microvessel density data. RESULTS: Microvessel density significantly correlated with the stromal score (r=0.3209; P<0.001). Patients with high microvessel density showed significantly poorer overall survival than those with low microvessel density both in the training series (4-year OS 54% vs. 78%; P=0.004) and in the validation cohort (57% vs. 81%; P=0.006). In multivariate analysis, in both groups high microvessel density was a statistically significant unfavorable prognostic factor independent of international prognostic index [training series: international prognostic index (relative risk 2.7; P=0.003); microvessel density (relative risk 1.96; P=0.002); validation cohort: international prognostic index (relative risk 4.74; P<0.001); microvessel density (relative risk 2.4; P=0.016)]. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the impact of angiogenesis in the outcome of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and the interest of evaluating antiangiogenic drugs in clinical trials.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".