The presence of CXCR4<sup>+</sup>CD1a<sup>+</sup>cells at onset of Langerhans cell histiocytosis is associated with a less favorable outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis (LCH) is a neoplastic disorder characterized by tissue accumulating CD1a+ histiocytes which frequently carry somatic mutations. Irrespective of mutation status, these LCH-cells display constitutively active kinases belonging to the MAPK pathway. We evaluated, in retrospect, the contribution of individual components of the MAPK-activating and chemotaxis-promoting TNF-CXCR4-CXCL12 axis to LCH manifestation and outcome. Experimental design: CXCR4, CXCL12 and TNF protein expression was immunohistochemically analyzed in 70 LCH-affected biopsies. The presence of CXCR4+CD1a+ cells in peripheral blood (PB) and/or bone marrow (BM) samples was evaluated by flowcytometry in 13 therapy-naive LCH-patients. Results: CXCL12 was detected in 68/70 (97%) biopsies. CXCR4+LCH-cells were present in 50/70 (71%) biopsies; their presence was associated with higher levels of intralesional TNF. Circulating CD1a+CXCR4+ cells were detected in 4/13 (31%) therapy-naïve LCH-patients which displayed BRAFV600E (2/4), MAP2K1 (1/4) or no (1/4) mutations in their tissues. These CD11c co-expressing CD1a+CXCR4+cells migrated to CXCL12 in chemotaxis assays. Lesional CXCR4+LCH-cells were detected in 18/20 cases who presented with LCH manifestation at multiple sites and in 5/23 (22%) patients who developed additional lesions after initially presenting with a single lesion. The CXCR4 status at onset proved to be an independent risk factor for LCH reactivation in multivariate analysis (odds ratio 10.4, p = 0.034). Conclusions: This study provides the first evidence that CXCR4 is involved in the homing and retention of LCH-cells in CXCL12-expressing tissues and qualifies CXCR4 as a candidate prognostic marker for less favorable disease outcome.
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) | 0.005 | 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".