MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Prognostic Significance of BCL6 Translocation in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Patients Treated with R-CHOP

2008· article· en· W2552187469 on OpenAlexaff
Jesse Shustik, Christian Steidl, Laurie H. Sehn, Randy D. Gascoyne

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBCL6Chromosomal translocationCHOPDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaLymphomaInternal medicineTissue microarrayMedicineFluorescence in situ hybridizationRituximabPathologyCancer researchOncologyGastroenterologyBiologyImmunohistochemistryImmunologyGerminal centerB cellGeneticsChromosomeAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Translocation of the BCL6 oncogene is the most commonly-detected chromosomal abnormality in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), but its prognostic significance remains uncertain. BCL6 translocation has been associated with variable outcomes in prior clinical series, and its clinical impact has not been reevaluated since the introduction of rituximab (R). The objective of this study was to determine the prognostic value of BCL6 translocation in DLBCL patients treated with both CHOP and R-CHOP immunochemotherapy. Methods We included 163 DLBCL patients treated with CHOP (n=72) or R-CHOP (n=73) at the British Columbia Cancer Agency between the years 1999–2002. Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded diagnostic lymph node specimens were analyzed for BCL6 translocation on tissue microarray (TMA) by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), using commercially available dual-color break-apart probes (Abbott Molecular, IL, USA). Immunohistochemical analysis was performed for BCL6, CD10, and MUM1 expression, and cases were categorized as germinal centre B-cell-like (GCB) or non-GCB using a standard algorithm (Hans, Blood 2004). Results BCL6 translocation status was evaluable in 145 cases, and was positive (BCL6+) in 26% (37/145). Median age (65 vs. 59 years, p=0.03) and overall IPI score (p=0.03) were higher in the BCL6+ than in the BCL6− subgroup. Presence of BCL6 translocation correlated with non-GCB phenotype by immunohistochemical analysis (p=0.03), and showed no significant association with BCL6 protein expression (p=0.32). Median follow-up duration was 4.8 years (range, 0.1–8.4). BCL6 translocation was associated with a trend toward decreased overall survival (OS) among patients treated with R-CHOP (5-year OS 46.7% vs. 68%, p=0.098), though not among CHOP-treated patients (5-year OS 36.4% vs.49.5%, p=0.393). Kaplan-Meier analysis limited to the BCL6+ subgroup showed no overall survival difference between patients treated with CHOP and R-CHOP (p=0.67). Conclusions BCL6 translocations are found in approximately 25% of patients with de novo DLBCL. Presence of BCL6 translocation appears to predict unfavorable outcome in DLBCL patients treated with R-CHOP. However, the adverse prognostic impact of BCL6 translocation is confounded by an association with high IPI score and with non-GCB phenotype. Prospective analysis within large clinical trials would help to determine the independent prognostic value of this marker in the rituximab era.

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 score0.002
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
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.197 · 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→