MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

High expression of nucleoside transporter hENT1 predicts a worse event-free survival in relapsed/refractory Hodgkin lymphoma patients treated with gemcitabine, vinorelbine, and liposomal doxorubicin—A CALGB 59804 correlative study

2006· article· en· W2243142335 on OpenAlexaff
Raymond Lai, Eric D. Hsi, John R. Mackey, Sin‐Ho Jung, Jeffrey L. Johnson, James R. Cook, D. Breese Jones, Jonathan Said, Bruce D. Cheson, Nancy L. Bartlett

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdenosine and Purinergic Signaling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVinorelbineGemcitabineInternal medicineOncologyHazard ratioUnivariate analysisNucleoside transporterChemotherapyGastroenterologyConfidence intervalMultivariate analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

7581 Background: CALGB 59804 was a phase I/II trial of gemcitabine, vinorelbine, and liposomal doxorubicin (GVD) for pts with relapsed Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). Overall response rate (RR) was 70% (manuscript in review). Plasma membrane nucleoside transporters such as hENT1 are important in transporting nucleoside analogs into cells to exert their pharmacologic effects. We hypothesized high hENT1 expression would predict better RR and outcome in pts treated with GVD. Methods: 58 of 91 pts enrolled in CALGB 59804 had sufficient tissue for study; 31 relapse biopsies and 27 initial diagnosis biopsies. Expression of hENT1 was evaluated by immunohistochemistry in formalin fixed tissue and scored independently by two hematopathologists (RL and EH) blinded to the clinical outcomes. Positivity for hENT1 was defined as >25% of Reed-Sternberg (RS) cells expressing hENT1. Expression was correlated with clinical factors, including IPS at relapse, as well as the overall (OS) and event-free survival (EFS). Results: Expression of hENT1 in RS cells was heterogeneous among cases. 28/58 cases (48%) were hENT1-positive. hENT1-expression was not associated with age, gender, stage, IPS (≤2 or >2), or maximum toxicity grade (≤2 or >2). Compared to hENT1-negative pts, hENT1-positive pts were less likely to have complete or partial response (19/30, 63% versus 22/28, 76%, P=0.20, chi square). hENT1 expression was not significantly associated with OS (P=0.18). Univariate log-rank analysis showed hENT1 positivity and IPS >2 correlated significantly with a lower EFS (P=0.05, and P=0.03, respectively). Multivariate Cox regression analysis confirmed that IPS >2 and hENT1 positivity were independent predictors of EFS (Hazard ratio 2.16, 95%CI 1.08–4.35, P=0.03; and Hazard ratio 2.10, 95% CI 1.06–4.19, P=0.03, respectively). P-values are two-sided. Conclusions: Contrary to our hypothesis, there is an inverse relationship between EFS and hENT1 expression in relapsed HL pts treated with GVD. High expression of hENT1 did not identify gemcitabine-sensitive disease, but may identify a biologically aggressive and/or treatment refractory subtype of HL. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicAdenosine and Purinergic SignalingFrench-language works237,207