MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2553381768 · doi:10.1182/blood.v112.11.522.522

Genetic Alterations Detected by High-Resolution Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization in Microdissected HRS Cells Correlate with Treatment Outcome in Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma

2008· article· en· W2553381768 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christian Steidl, Adèle Telenius, Sohrab P. Shah, K-John Cheung, Lorena Barclay, Joseph M. Connors, Douglas E. Horsman, Randy D. Gascoyne

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMolecular Biology Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComparative genomic hybridizationMicrodissectionCDKN2ABiologyLaser capture microdissectionLymphomaInternal medicineOncologyCancer researchCancerMolecular biologyGeneticsMedicineGenomeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract INTRODUCTION: Clinical decision making in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is primarily based on clinical variables in part because the scarcity of the malignant Hodgkin Reed Sternberg cells (HRS cells) hampers their molecular characterization. However, more recently investigation using laser capture microdissection has allowed a more detailed analysis of these cells. The objective of this study was to detect genomic alterations in HRS cells and correlate these changes with treatment outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We studied 53 patients with classical HL who were primarily treated at the BC Cancer Agency in Vancouver between 1984 and 2006. All received at least 4 cycles of polychemotherapy and stage-dependent radiotherapy if indicated. The cohort included 43 pretreatment samples and 10 biopsies taken at relapse. Treatment failure was defined as disease progression or relapse at any time (n=23), treatment success as absence of progression (n=30). Whole genome amplification (GenomePlex, Sigma) of pools from 500–1000 individually picked, microdissected HRS cells (Molecular Machines & Industries Cellcut with Nikon Eclipse TE2000-S microscope) was performed. 200 ng of amplified DNA was hybridized to 32k submegabase resolution BAC tiling arrays (SMRT) against sex-matched control-DNA. Scoring of array CGH data was performed by computational analysis using CNA-HMMer v0.1 (available at http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~sshah/acgh/) based on a Hidden Markov Model (HMM). Clustering of the 53 cases was performed using the K-medoids algorithm. Areas of amplification bias and known copy number polymorphisms were excluded. RESULTS: On average whole genome amplification generated 500-fold amplification of genomic DNA. The most frequent copy number alterations (>20% of cases) included gains of 2p14–24.3, 9p12–24.3, 12p11.21–13.33, 16p11.2–13.3, 17p11.2–13.3, 17q11.1–25.1, 19p12–13.3, 19q12–13.43, 20q11.21–13.32, 21q22.11–22.2 and losses of 1p36.31–36.33, 6q11.1–27, 7q22.1–36.3, 8p23.1–23.3, 11q22.3–25, 13q33.3–34 and Xq11.2–28. We also identified several small changes (<5 Mbs) such as loss of 1p36.32, 5q31.1 or 6q23.3 and amplification of 1q32.1, 8q24.21, 17q21.31 or 20q13.2. When comparing the different outcome groups we more frequently identified gains of chromosomal regions 12p13.31–13.33 and 16p12.1–13.3 in treatment failures (39% vs. 13%, Fisher exact p=0.05 and 43% vs. 10%, p=0.009), and losses of chromosomal regions 16q12.1–12.2 and 17p13.1–13.2 (17% vs. 0%, p=0.061 and 27% vs. 4%, p=0.061) were more frequently observed in treatment successes. We did not find significant differences of these changes between pretreatment (n=13) and relapse biopsies (n=10) of patients failing treatment. Using unsupervised analysis we identified a sample cluster of eight cases characterized by simultaneous occurrence of gains of 2p, 16p, 17p, 19q and losses of 6q. Notably, treatment failed in six of these cases. DISCUSSION: The combination of laser microdissection with subsequent WGA and high resolution array CGH provides a robust and sensitive platform for detecting chromosomal imbalances in microdissected HRS cells. We identified at high-resolution new and recurrent changes defining chromosomal regions that potentially harbor oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes crucial to the pathogenesis of HL. Furthermore, we found copy number alterations that are significantly associated with disease progression which, therefore, could serve as predictive factors for treatment outcome.

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)0.000
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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicMolecular Biology Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207