CD30+ expression in Peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs): A subset analysis from the international, prospective T-Cell Project.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
8552 Background: CD30 is a member of TNF-alpha receptor family that might have important therapeutic implications with the advent of targeted therapies. Several PTCLs subtypes have been reported in literature to be associated to variable CD30 expression. We investigated the frequency of CD30 expression among PTCLs subtypes registered in the T-Cell Project and correlated it with clinical features and outcome. Methods: The T-cell Project is a prospective, international study in patients (pts) with newly diagnosed aggressive PTCLs. Clinical, laboratory and disease localization data at diagnosis as well as therapy details and follow-up information are collected at a dedicated website via secure HTTP protocols. Central review of diagnostic biopsy is planned. Results: From Sept 2006 to Jan 2015, 1308 pts were registered in the T-Cell Project by 73 sites from 14 countries world-wide. As from the 792 pathology forms filled out by site local staff CD30 expression was tested in 490 pts (62%) and reported as CD30+ in 349 (71%) and CD30- in 141 (29%). Frequency of CD30 expression in different subtypes is shown in the Table. CD30+ pts tended to be younger (54 vs 58 yrs, P = .03) with less extranodal involvement (65% vs 78%, P = .01) than CD30-. CHOP like regimens were the most common irrespective of CD30 status (63% in both groups, P = 1.0). In the group of pts with any histology but ALCL, no difference in CR rate (44% vs 51%, P = .26), 5-yr PFS (29% vs 22%, P = .57) and OS (44% vs 29%, P = .17) was observed between CD30+ and CD30- pts. Brentuximab use in first line was noted in only 5 pts enrolled in clinical trials. Conclusions: Data from the T-cell project confirm that CD30 is expressed in many PTCLs other than ALCL, thus suggesting a routine assessment for all PTCLs. Again, this analysis suggests that CD30 expression has no prognostic significance. The very limited use of anti CD30 targeted therapy in this sample doesn’t allow to establish the predictive value of CD30 expression in PTCLs. CD30- N, % CD30+ N, % PTCL,NOS 85, 41 120, 59 AITL 16, 42 50, 76 ALCL 0, 0 145, 100 NKTCL 13, 48 14, 52 EATL 11, 46 13, 54 Other 16, 70 7, 30
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".