<scp>CD</scp>30 expression in <i>de novo</i> diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma: a population‐based study from British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a heterogeneous disease with variable therapeutic responses and alternative therapies are needed for patients with unfavourable treatment outcomes after standard treatment with R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone). One promising candidate is brentuximab vedotin, an antibody-drug conjugate targeting CD30-expressing cells. However, CD30 (TNFRSF8) expression patterns in DLBCL are not well described thus far. Here, we examined CD30 expression in a population-based cohort of immunocompetent patients from British Columbia with de novo DLBCL using immunohistochemistry. 385 cases of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded DLBCL in tissue microarrays were evaluated. 95 cases (25%) harboured CD30+ tumour cells. Using a > 0% cut-off, CD30 expression was predictive of superior 5-year progression-free survival within R-CHOP treated germinal centre B-cell-like (GCB) DLBCL (86% vs. 64%, P = 0·020), which was independent of the International Prognostic Index. Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) was identified in 11 (3%) cases, all of which were non-GCB (P = 0·001) and almost exclusively positive for CD30 expression (10/11) (P < 0·001). We conclude CD30 is expressed in a substantial proportion of DLBCL and CD30 immunohistochemistry may be a useful prognostic marker in R-CHOP treated GCB-DLBCL. The significant association of CD30 with EBV-positive non-GCB DLBCL suggests a distinct pathobiology for these cases.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".