MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

BCL-2 Expression May Adversely Affect Outcome in HIV-Associated Systemic Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma.

2005· article· en· W2530914402 on OpenAlexaff
Hatoon Ezzat, Julie Filipenko, Linda M. Vickars, Paul F. Galbraith, Charles Li, Kevin Murphy, Joan Montaner, Marianne Harris, Robert S. Hogg, Suzanne Vercauteren, Chantal S. Leger, Leslie Zypchen, Heather A. Leitch

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencySt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaMedicineRituximabLymphomaInternal medicineCHOPGastroenterologyOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BCL-2 expression in diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in HIV-negative patients (pts) is associated with inferior outcome, an effect at least partially overcome by the addition of rituximab (R) to multi-agent chemotherapy (MA-CT). The effect of BCL-2 expression on DLBCL outcome in HIV-positive pts is less well defined. We performed a retrospective clinical-pathological correlation in 141 pts with systemic HIV-associated lymphoma seen at St. Paul’s Hospital between 1982 and 2004; this analysis includes 36 DLBCL since 1992. Clinical DLBCL data were obtained by chart review; HIV-associated data from the data-base of the BC Centre For Excellence in HIV/AIDS. Stored biopsy material diagnostic of DLBCL was sectioned and stained for BCL-2 expression. Median age at DLBCL diagnosis (dx) was 42 (range 20–64)y, DLBCL stage advanced 27; ECOG PS >1 n=11; median LDH ratio 1.4 (0.5–8.6); IPI >2 n=11; CD4 at DLBCL dx >100 n=21; prior AIDS dx n=18; hepatitis B and/or C n=9; on highly active anti-retroviral therapy (HAART) at DLBCL dx n=11; BCL-2+ n=11. HAART with DLBCL treatment (tx) n=17; received CHOP-R n=9, CHOP or ACOP n=18; G-CSF n=10; herpes virus tx n=10; PCP prophylaxis n=35. Significant factors for inferior overall survival (OS) included prior AIDS, median OS (MS) 3.2 vs. 7.4 mo with no AIDS; no HAART use, MS 2.6 vs. 5.2 mo with HAART; BCL-2+, MS 3.2 vs. 5.2 mo for BCL-2 negative; and receiving MA-CT without R, MS 3.8 vs. 7.6 mo for MA-CT + R (p<0.05 for all factors). Though a statistically significant effect could not be confirmed, the use of MA-CT + R appeared to improve progression-free survival (PFS) in BCL-2+ DLBCL, PFS 3 of 3 pts at 2.3 mo (2 on HAART) vs. 2 of 6 (33%, 2 on HAART) PFS at 2.1 mo for MA-CT without R. PFS for 6 pts receiving HAART and MA-CT + R (3 BCL-2+) was 100% at 2.3 mo, while for 12 pts receiving HAART and MA-CT without R (2 BCL-2+), median PFS was 2.0 (range 1–10.1) mo or 55% PFS at 2.1 mo. For pts not receiving HAART; MA-CT (n=4, 2 BCL-2+), 3 progressed at 0.5, 5.3 and 8.8 mo and died of DLBCL, and one died of treatment-related toxicity at 2.6 mo; MA-CT + R, 2 of 2 pts (neither BCL-2+) progressed at 3 and 11 mo. There were 15 documented episodes of treatment-related toxicity in 13 of 24 pts (54%) in the MA-CT group and 24 episodes in 7 of 9 pts (79%) in the MA-CT + R group (p<0.76). There were 13 (54%) toxic deaths with MA-CT vs. 2 (22%) with MA-CT + R (neither pt receiving HAART; p<0.07) as opposed to 2 (22%) and 13 (54%), respectively, deaths from DLBCL (p<0.02). Overall mortality was MA-CT n=19 (79%); MA-CT + R n=4 (44%), p<0.07. In conclusion, in this single-centre series of 36 pts with HIV-associated systemic DLBCL, of pts receiving no HAART, outcome was inferior in BCL-2+ DLBCL, an effect not seen with HAART. BCL-2+ DLBCL had inferior outcome in pts receiving MA-CT, an effect not seen with MA-CT + R. These data suggest that in BCL-2+ DLBCL in HIV, HAART and rituximab with chemotherapy are important in overcoming a BCL-2 effect.

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→