MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

C-myc Abnormalities in Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma - A Retrospective Review of Cytogenetic Patterns and Clinical Impact of c-myc Abnormalities by FISH Testing.

2005· review· en· W2549848218 on OpenAlexaff
Vishal Kukreti, S. Vohra, Kathy Chun, Denis Bailey, Bruce Patterson, Scott Boerner, William R. Geddie, Michael Crump

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLymphomaFollicular lymphomaMedicineInternational Prognostic IndexGastroenterologyChromosomal translocationChromosome abnormalityInternal medicineDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaHistologyPathologyStage (stratigraphy)Non-Hodgkin's lymphomaLarge-cell lymphomaOncologyBiologyKaryotypeChromosome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recent studies have shown that patients with aggressive histology non-hodgkins lymphoma (NHL) bearing translocations leading to aberrant expression of c-myc have a rapid clinical course and poor outcome, especially when accompanied by translocations involving BCL-2 such as t(14;18). We retrospectively reviewed patients with NHL in which abnormalities of the c-myc gene (rearrangement, extra copies, deletion) were found and correlated the cytogenetic abnormality with presenting characteristics and outcome. Methods: From May 2002 to June 2005, 138 samples were assessed for c-myc; 27 cases of NHL (excluding Burkitt [BL]and BL-like) with c-myc abnormalities were identified and included (25 tissue biopsies, 1 bone marrow, 1 CSF sample). Testing for c-myc abnormalities was initiated for: differential diagnosis of atypical BL or one or more of the following: high MIB-1 index (>70%) − 63%; aggressive morphological features − 81%; aggressive clinical course − 52%; suspected transformation of indolent lymphoma − 19%. Results: There were 12 males and 15 females included with an age range of 26–83 years; 67% had stage 3 or 4 disease and 38% had B-symptoms. The pathological diagnosis was follicular lymphoma (FL) in 3 cases, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in 22 cases [13 de novo, 5 transformed from FL, 4 recurrent/refractory] and 2 cases with both FL and DLBCL. FISH analysis for c-myc by the Vysis dual colour break-apart probe (8q24.1) revealed 12 cases with only extra copies (polyploidy) [group 1]; 13 with rearrangement (4 also had extra-copies) [group 2]; one with gene deletion and one with gene deletion and extra-copies. BCL-2 rearrangements were also detected in 22 cases (in group 1, 44%; group 2 69%). All patients were to receive multiagent anthracycline based chemotherapy; chemotherapy was initiated in 89% and one died before this could be given. Thus far, 41% of the patients have died and 19% are alive with refractory disease. The clinical course for group 1 after c-myc abnormality identified was as follows: refractory to chemotherapy - 6 cases, 5 in complete remission (CR), one spontaneous remission without treatment (FL). The median survival for group 1 was 5 months (range 1–21 months) and deaths occurred shortly after current diagnosis (range 1–7 months). The clinical course for group 2 was as follows: refractory to chemotherapy - 11 cases and 3 are currently in a CR. The median survival for group 2 was 9 months (follow-up 1–13 months) and again deaths occurred shortly after current diagnosis (range 1–9 months). Conclusions: Both c-myc gene rearrangement and extra copies of c-myc seem to confer poor prognosis in NHL. Not all patients with c-myc abnormalities have morphological features suggestive of Burkitt-like lymphoma, while some patients with only extra copies of c-myc did have Burkitt-like lymphoma features. Testing for c-myc abnormalities may be indicated not only in patients with aggressive histology but also in those with clinically aggressive patterns of disease, and prospective evaluation of a c-myc testing algorithm to evaluate impact on therapy is required.

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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.330 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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