The Effect of FcγRIIIA Gene Polymorphism on the Treatment of Diffuse Large B-cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: A Multicenter Prospective Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The curative treatment approach for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is controversial even in the rituximab (R) era. The aim of this study was to examine the FcγRIIIA gene polymorphism distribution of DLBCL patients who had been treated with R-CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) chemotherapy. Furthermore, we investigated the impact of FcγRIIIA gene polymorphism on the overall response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients from 3 centers in the Aegean region of Turkey who had newly diagnosed CD20-positive DLBCL were enrolled in the study. The single nucleotide polymorphisms of the FcγRIIIA gene were analyzed by real time-PCR. The response to treatment was determined in the middle and at the end of the protocol. During 2 years of follow-up, the patients were clinically and radiologically evaluated for disease status every 3 months. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients were included in the study and the distributions of F/F, V/F, and V/V types of alleles of FcγRIIIA were 25%, 50%, and 25%, respectively. Twenty-seven patients were considered as evaluable according to ORR and OS. The patients' ORR was 87.5%, 100%, and 50% in the F/F, V/F, and V/V allele groups, respectively. We did not establish any statistically significant differences among the 3 alleles groups in respect to ORR (p=0.93). The OS within 2 years in the F/F, V/F, and V/V allele groups was 62.5%, 100%, and 100%, respectively. The OS in the F/F allele group was found to be lower than in the other 2 allele groups (p=0.01). CONCLUSION: The distribution of gene polymorphisms in our study group was similar to those of previous studies. While ORR was similar between the groups, our results highlight a lower OS in F/F patients compared to other allele groups of FcγRIIIA.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".