A Link Between Hypercholesterolemia and Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Dyslipidemia and metabolic syndrome are risk factors for cancer, and clinically aggressive CLL cells are believed to rely on lipid metabolism. Statins promote apoptosis and inhibit CLL cell growth in pre-clinical models, and statin use during salvage therapy for CLL may confer a survival advantage. Methods To investigate the prevalence of hyperlipidemia and the effect of statin therapy, lipid profiling was performed on 238 consecutive patients presenting to a specialized CLL clinic between January 2012 and February 2014. Demographics, timing of diagnosis and initiation of chemoimmunotherapy was ascertained from clinical records. Prognostic information was obtained from pathology or flow cytometeric reports. The first lipid profile following CLL diagnosis was recorded. RAI stage was determined from blood counts and radiology or clinical examination at the time of lipid profiling. Patients were grouped according to statin therapy (yes/no) and hyperlipidemia. Results Of 281 patients reviewed, 238 were evaluable with a lipid profile. 110 patients (46.2%) were either taking statins at the time of their CLL diagnosis (27.3%) or prescribed a statin during the study period (18.5%) and an additional 11 (4.2%) had a diagnosis of dyslipidemia not on therapy. Of the remaining 117 patients, 18 had LDL ³ 3.5mmol/L, giving a total of 139 patients (58.4%) with abnormal lipid profiles. The statin-exposed group was significantly older (median age 69.5 vs 65, p=0.03) and there were a larger proportion of males (68.6% vs. 53.9%, p=0.02). There were no significant differences in RAI staging, cytogenetics, beta-2-microglobulin levels, or CD38 expression between groups. (Table 1) 59.7% of all patients were treatment-free by the end of the study period and there were no differences between statin/no-statin groups. Of those requiring treatment, median time to first treatment (TFT) was 48 (IQR, 24-85.3) months. TFT was significantly longer with statins (57.5 (IQR, 32-77) vs. 36 (IQR, 11-100) months, p<0.02. Initiation of statins following diagnosis of CLL was associated with further prolongation of TFT compared to those on statins at diagnosis (74 (IQR, 62-96) vs. 45 (IQR, 30-64) months, p<0.02). Two cases of spontaneous remission were noted with statin initiation. (Figure 1) Conclusions There is an increased prevalence of hyperlipidemia in CLL patients (58.4%) compared to the general population (35-39%). Statin therapy is associated with a prolonged TFT despite a significantly older population and a higher proportion of male patients in this group. CLL patients should be screened for hyperlipidemia and statin therapy may be an adjunct to CLL treatment. Patient Characteristics by Lipid Abnormalities Abstract 5630. Table 1.Time to First Treatment (TFT) by Statin UseTotal N (%)No statin N (%)Statin Use/Dyslipidemia N (%)p -valueTotal238117121Male146 (61.3)63 (53.9)83 (68.6)0.02Median age (Q1, Q3)67 (60, 74)65 (58, 73)69 (63, 76)0.01RAI Stage0.64N1178 (74.8%)78 (66.7%)99 (81.8%)MBL73407135361341618232102232081241477Lipid profile (Mean ± Std Dev)HDL (mM)1.23 ± 0.471.33 ± 0.491.14 ± 0.420.001LDL (mM)2.55 ± 1.032.69 ± 0.872.42 ± 1.160.05TC/HDL3.92 ± 1.433.80 ± 1.254.03 ± 1.570.21Non HDL-C (mM)3.22 ± 1.143.29 ± 0.993.14 ± 1.270.29B2M (N = 0.6-2.3 m g/ml)0.52Mean ± Std Dev3.20 ± 2.143.19 ± 2.363.21 ± 1.92CD38 status0.86Unknown74 (31.1%)37 (31.6%)37 (30.6%)CD38+331419CD38-1226260Partial945Cytogenetics20.32Unknown125 (52.5%)61 (52.1%)63 (52.1%)13q-62283511q-1367+122081217p-1275normal24159>1 abnormality201010 1stage determined from those untreated at time of lipid profiling 2counted in all pertinent groups if more than one abnormality Abstract 5630. Table 2. Time to First Treatment (TFT) by Statin Initiation Total (N=238) No statin (N=128) Statin Use (N=110) P-value W&W1 (%) 142 (59.7) 74 (58.8) 68 (61.8) 0.53 Available TFT data/Total Treated2 89/96 51/54 38/42 Median TFT (IQR) (mo) 48 (24, 83) 36 (11, 100) 57.5 (32, 77) 0.02 1watch & wait 2could not determine TFT for some patients. Abstract 5630. Table 3. No statin (N=128) Statin Started (N=43) Statin Previous (N=67) P-value W&W1 (%) 74 (58.8) 29 (67.4) 39 (58.2) 0.55 Available TFT data/Total Treated2 51/54 13/14 25/28 Median TFT (IQR) (mo) 36 (11, 100) 74 (62, 96) 45 (30, 64) 0.04 1watch & wait 2could not determine TFT for some Figure 1 Figure 1. [1]Spaner DE, Lee E, Shi Y, Wen F, Li Y et al. Leukemia 2013; 27:1090-1099. [2]Chae YK, Trinh L, Jain P, Wang X, Rozovski U et al. Blood 2014; 123: 1424-1426. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".