MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Cell-of-Origin Subtype Classification of Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Using the Lymph2Cx Assay Retains Relevance in the Context of BCL2 and MYC Expression Status

2014· article· en· W2560172367 on OpenAlexaff
Samantha Kendrick, Katalin Tus, David W. Scott, George W. Wright, Elaine S. Jaffe, Andreas Rosenwald, Elı́as Campo, Wing C. Chan, Joseph M. Connors, Rita M. Braziel, German Ott, Jan Delabie, James R. Cook, Dennis D. Weisenburger, Timothy C. Greiner, Kai Fu, Louis M. Staudt, Randy D. Gascoyne, Lisa M. Rimsza

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSpinal Cord Injury BCBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
Keywordsclone (Java method)Germinal centerTissue microarrayDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaImmunohistochemistryContext (archaeology)LymphomaPathologyBiologyGene expression profilingCancer researchMolecular biologyB cellAntibodyMedicineGeneGene expressionImmunologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In 2000, gene expression profiling (GEP) studies discovered two distinct, predominant genetic profiles associated with either a germinal center B-cell (GCB) or activated B-cell (ABC) cell-of-origin (COO) contributing to the morphologically and clinically heterogeneous nature of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) (Alizadeh et al NEJM 2000). Follow-up GEP and sequencing studies confirmed the validity of the COO subgroup classification. Recently, we established the Lymph2Cx assay, which uses 20 gene probes, Nanostring technology (Seattle, WA), and formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues (FFPET) to classify DLBCL into reproducible COO subgroups (Scott et al Blood 2014). Expression of the anti-apoptotic BCL2 and proliferative MYC oncogenes are also highly associated with prognosis, such that double protein positive cases have a significantly worse outcome (Johnson et al J Clin Oncol 2012). However, in at least one study BCL2/MYC was reported to over-ride the prognostic significance of COO (Hu S et al Blood 2013). We further investigated the relationship between COO, as determined by Lymph2Cx, with BCL2 and MYC protein status. Fifty-six DLBCL FFPET the from Scott et al, Blood 2014 series were constructed on a tissue microarray (TMA) including 20 ABC, 27 GCB, and 9 unclassifiable. For BCL2 staining, we used the standard BCL2 clone (124, Ventana Medical Systems, Tucson, AZ) and rabbit monoclonal antibody (SP66, Spring Biosciences), which reportedly is more sensitive for IHC (Kendrick et al Hum Pathol 2014 in press). The EP121 clone (Epitomics) was used for MYC. All cases were successfully stained with both BCL2 antibodies and MYC on the BenchMark¨ XT instrument. The stained TMAs were independently scored in increments of 10% by two hematopathologists (K.T. and L.M.R) and positivity for BCL2 and MYC were assessed at cut-offs of ³50% and ³40%, respectively, as previously described (Johnson et al J Clin Oncol 2012). All patients received R-CHOP therapy and overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method using date of lymphoma diagnosis. Significant differences were determined using the log-rank test and a P-value of less than 0.05. The University of Arizona Institutional Review Board in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki approved the use of human tissues and clinical data for this study. The ABC-DLBCL displayed worse OS and PFS compared to GCB-DLBCL using the Lymph2Cx assigned COO with PFS reaching significance (P=0.007). These correlations were slightly more pronounced compared to analysis with COO determined from the gold standard (Lenz et al NEJM 2008), which achieved a PFS difference with a P=0.03. BCL2 expression was detected in a higher frequency of ABC cases either alone (70% vs 56%) or concurrently (50% vs 30%) with MYC using SP66, and to a lesser extent with 124. More importantly, BCL2 when co-expressed with high levels of MYC portends a poor clinical outcome (Figure 1). When BCL2+/MYC+ cases were examined according to subtype, ABC-DLBCL displayed a worse OS and PFS, although there were not enough cases to reach statistical significance (Figure 2). The SP66 antibody was superior for BCL2 detection and demonstrating the prognostic significance of BCL2+/MYC+ cases in the total cohort. The Lymph2Cx COO designations also reflected the predominant correlation of BCL2 t(14;18) translocations with GCB-DLBCL (38%, 9/24 cases vs 0% 0/18 ABC cases, P = 0.005) within the cohort displaying the typical overall frequency (19%, 9/47 cases). The Lymph2Cx assay provides a reliable, robust and straightforward assessment of DLBCL COO that overcomes limitations of large scale GEP and is consistent with the well known BCL2 and MYC subtype associations. The COO remains relevant even in the context of BCL2 and MYC status indicating that both of these factors are important for prognosis; however, at this time there are not enough cases for a multivariate comparison. With the advent of targeted therapies and precision medicine, the ability to distinguish DLBCL COO will have strongly impact clinical trials and patient management at time of diagnosis. Figure 1. Overall and progression free survival of DLBCL subtypes as assigned by Lymph2Cx according to BCL2 and MYC protein status. Figure 1. Overall and progression free survival of DLBCL subtypes as assigned by Lymph2Cx according to BCL2 and MYC protein status. Figure 2. Overall and progression free survival of concurrent BCL2 and MYC protein positive cases according to DLBCL subtypes as assigned by the Lymph2Cx. Figure 2. Overall and progression free survival of concurrent BCL2 and MYC protein positive cases according to DLBCL subtypes as assigned by the Lymph2Cx. Disclosures Scott: NIH: Patents & Royalties. Wright:NIH: The author is a potential inventor on a patent application using Nanostring technology for the Lymph2Cx assay, which has been licensed from the NIH by Nanostring Patents & Royalties. Jaffe:Nanostring: The author is a potential inventor on a patent applicaiton using Nanostring technology for a different assay, which has been licensed from the NIH by Nanostring Patents & Royalties. Rosenwald:Nanostring: The author is a potential inventor on a patent application using Nanostring technology for the Lymph2Cx assay, which has been licensed from the NIH by Nanostring Patents & Royalties. Campo:Nanostring: The author is a potential inventor on a patent application using Nanostring technology for the Lymph2Cx assay, which has been licensed from the NIH by Nanostring Patents & Royalties. Chan:Nanostring: The author is a potential inventor on a patent application using Nanostring technology for the Lymph2Cx assay, which has been licensed from the NIH by Nanostring Patents & Royalties. Connors:NIH: Patents & Royalties. Braziel:Nanostring: The author is a potential inventor on a patent applicaiton using Nanostring technology for a different assay, which has been licensed from the NIH by Nanostring Patents & Royalties. Ott:Nanostring: The author is a potential inventor on a patent applicaiton using Nanostring technology for a different assay, which has been licensed from the NIH by Nanostring Patents & Royalties. Delabie:Nanostring: The author is a potential inventor on a patent application using Nanostring technology for the Lymph2Cx assay, which has been licensed from the NIH by Nanostring Patents & Royalties. Cook:Nanostring: The author is a potential inventor on a patent application using Nanostring technology for the Lymph2Cx assay, which has been licensed from the NIH by Nanostring Patents & Royalties. Weisenburger:Nanostring: The author is a potential inventor on a patent application using Nanostring technology for the Lymph2Cx assay, which has been licensed from the NIH by Nanostring Patents & Royalties. Greiner:Nanostring: The author is a potential inventor on a patent application using Nanostring technology for the Lymph2Cx assay, which has been licensed from the NIH by Nanostring Patents & Royalties. Fu:Nanostring: The author is a potential inventor on a patent application using Nanostring technology for the Lymph2Cx assay, which has been licensed from the NIH by Nanostring Patents & Royalties. Staudt:Nanostring: The author is a potential inventor on a patent application using Nanostring technology for the Lymph2Cx assay, which has been licensed from the NIH by Nanostring Patents & Royalties. Gascoyne:NIH: Patents & Royalties; Celgene: Consultancy. Rimsza:Nanostring: The author is a potential inventor on a patent application using Nanostring technology for the Lymph2Cx assay, which has been licensed from the NIH by Nanostring Patents & Royalties.

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)0.001
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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.266
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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