MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2551684983 · doi:10.1182/blood.v112.11.520.520

Genome-Wide Expression Profiling Predicts Treatment Outcome in Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma

2008· article· en· W2551684983 on OpenAlexaff
Christian Steidl, Tang Lee, Sohrab P. Shah, Guangming Han, Tarun Nayar, Allen Delaney, Steven M. Jones, Wing C. Chan, Andreas Rosenwald, Lisa M. Rimsza, Elı́as Campo, Elaine S. Jaffe, Louis M. Staudt, Georg Lenz, Joseph M. Connors, Randy D. Gascoyne

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences CentreBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineOncologyUnivariate analysisLymphomaInternational Prognostic IndexProgression-free survivalGene expression profilingImmunohistochemistryCD20RituximabDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaLogistic regressionPathologyMultivariate analysisChemotherapyGene expressionBiologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract INTRODUCTION: Despite advances in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) treatment about 20% of patients still die due to progressive disease. Current prognostic models predict treatment outcome with imperfect accuracy and clinically relevant biomarkers are yet to be established that improve upon the existing International Prognostic Scoring system. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed 113 fresh frozen lymph node specimens from classical HL patients by gene expression profiling (Affymetrix UA 133 2.0 Plus) focusing on correlations with treatment outcome. The cohort comprised 100 diagnostic pretreatment and 13 relapse biopsies. Treatment was considered a failure if the lymphoma progressed during therapy or relapsed at any time. Treatment success was defined as absence of progression or relapse. Gene expression findings were validated in paraffin embedded material using immunohistochemistry (IHC) for CD20 and CD56 in the original 100 cases, in an independent validation cohort of 166 cases and a set of 172 cases using flow cytometric assessment of CD20 and CD56. For our predictive model, we trained a classifier by Simultaneous Multinominal Logistic Regression (SMLR) and assessed relative feature importance using Random Forests. RESULTS: We found underexpression of genes representing a global B cell signature in 18 pretreatment biopsies of patients whose first line systemic chemotherapy failed (p=0.033). These results were independently validated using immunohistochemistry for CD20 in 166 patients. The presence of background B cells in the direct vicinity of Hodgkin Reed Sternberg (HRS) cells favorably affected progression-free survival (p=0.042) in a univariate analysis; however, in multivariate analysis only clinical stage and hemoglobin were independent prognostic factors. Furthermore, down-regulation of genes involved in T cell receptor signaling was associated with failure of first line systemic chemotherapy. In contrast to immunohistochemistry validation, flow cytometry was not sensitive to differences in T (CD3) or B cell (CD20) numbers (p=0.22 and p=0.35, respectively). Under-expression of genes of an NK cell signature in 6 relapse biopsies correlated with failure to secondary therapy with autologous stem cell transplantation (p=0.048). IHC accordingly showed complete lack of NK cells in these biopsies. To study the predictive power of gene expression in comparison to clinical risk factors, we identified 103 gene expression probe sets and Ann Arbor stage as the most important features. Importantly, we found 8 probe sets that were more influential than Ann Arbor stage. In comparison to either gene expression or clinical variables alone, combining of the two data sources achieved best performance values for predicting outcome of first line treatment (Receiver Operating Characteristics [ROC]: AUC(combined) = 0.76; AUC(gene expression) = 0.71; AUC(clinical) = 0.69). CONCLUSION: Clinical outcome correlates with the presence of B cells in pretreatment and NK cells in relapse biopsies verifying the importance of the microenvironment for outcome prediction in HL. We were able to validate these findings by IHC and showed that GEP adds to the predictive value of clinical prognostic scoring. Our data suggest that integration of further molecular data, especially those derived from HRS cell enriched specimens, will be of value in helping to inform novel predictive models in Hodgkin lymphoma.

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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