MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145717684 · doi:10.1200/jco.2009.24.1893

Hypoxia-Inducible Factor-1 α Expression Predicts Superior Survival in Patients With Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Treated With R-CHOP

2010· article· en· W2145717684 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew M. Evens, Laurie H. Sehn, Pedro Farinha, Beverly P. Nelson, Adekunle Raji, Yi Lu, Adam Brakman, Vamsi Parimi, Jane N. Winter, Paul T. Schumacker, Randy D. Gascoyne, Leo I. Gordon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer, Hypoxia, and Metabolism
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
FundersNational Cancer InstituteAmerican Society of Clinical Oncology
KeywordsCHOPMedicineBCL6International Prognostic IndexDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaLymphomaInternal medicineRituximabGerminal centerOncologyTissue microarrayCyclophosphamideImmunohistochemistryCancer researchGastroenterologyImmunologyB cellChemotherapyAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE Hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) controls the expression of genes in response to hypoxia, as well as a wide range of other cellular processes. We previously showed constitutive stabilization of HIF-1alpha in the majority of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). To our knowledge, the prognostic significance of HIF in lymphoma has never been investigated. PATIENTS AND METHODS We studied the immunohistochemical protein expression of HIF-1alpha on tissue microarrays from 153 patients with DLBCL treated in sequential cohorts with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, oncovin, and prednisone (CHOP) or rituximab-CHOP (R-CHOP) from 1999 to 2002. Results were correlated with patient outcome. Results Median follow-up for all patients was 80 months. Among all patients, HIF-1alpha was expressed in 62% of germinal center and 59% of non-germinal center patients. With HIF-1alpha analyzed as a dependent variable, there were no survival differences in CHOP-treated patients. In the R-CHOP group, however, HIF-1alpha protein expression correlated with significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Five-year PFS for HIF-1alpha-positive patients was 71% v 43% for HIF-1alpha-negative patients (P = .0187), whereas 5-year OS was 75% and 54%, respectively (P = .025). In multivariate analysis with International Prognostic Index criteria, HIF-1alpha remained a significant predictor for PFS (P = .026) and OS (P = .043). Compared with other biomarkers, HIF-1alpha correlated only with BCL6 (P = .004). In terms of gene expression, we found several common gene associations of HIF-1alpha and the stromal-1 signature with genes predominantly involved in regulation of the extracellular matrix (eg, BGN, COL1A2, COL5A1, and PLOD2). CONCLUSION The expression of HIF-1alpha protein is an important independent favorable prognostic factor for survival in patients with DLBCL treated with R-CHOP.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations74
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer, Hypoxia, and MetabolismFrench-language works237,207