MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Gene-Expression for Prediction of Disease Progression Following Initial Management of Follicular Lymphoma

2015· article· en· W2582225016 on OpenAlexaff
Etienne Mahé, Ariz Akhter, Danielle H. Oh, Fahad Farooq, Meer‐Taher Shabani‐Rad, Adnan Mansoor, Douglas A. Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCalgary Laboratory ServicesUniversity of CalgaryFoothills Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFollicular lymphomaMedicineChemoimmunotherapyWatchful waitingOncologyInternal medicineProgression-free survivalBioinformaticsLymphomaCancerRituximabChemotherapyBiologyProstate cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Patients with advanced staged Follicular Lymphoma (FL) are initially managed with either immediate chemoimmunotherapy (CI) or "watchful waiting" (WW) depending on clinical symptoms, tumor burden, and organ compromise. Clinicians currently predict time to progression (TTP) using the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) score. Well-defined & validated molecular techniques capable of additional predictive power are lacking, however. We hypothesized that gene-expression (GE) data, employing an evidence-based feature set, might assist in the upfront stratification of FL patients. Objectives 1 Identify genes whose GE has previously been identified as relevant to FL 2 Perform GE testing on an series of FL cases, classified by upfront intervention, using this custom gene feature set 3 Identify the gene(s) most strongly predictive of disease progression in each of the clinical classes (i.e. CI vs. WW) 4 Compare the performance of GE data to other prognostic parameters Methods We performed a search of MEDLINE-indexed studies reporting FL GE results. We input all available appertaining data into NVIVO (v10), in which a computer-assisted search for GE features was performed. This list, after refinement, formed the basis of a custom NanoString codeset. We used the MD Anderson Microarray Sample Size Calculator for sample size estimation and retrieved FL cases from our regional archives; those cases with sufficient tissue were organized by upfront treatment approach and available clinical data recorded (age at diagnosis, sex, stage, grade, FLIPI scores & TTP). TTP was defined as time in months either to diagnosed disease progression or, in the WW group, first CI-based treatment. After pathology review, RNA was isolated using standard protocols. GE data was analyzed using gene-specific receiver-operating characteristic analysis, ranking performed according to the area-under-the-curve (MATLAB v 8.3.0.532). Validation against TTP using Cox-regression was then performed (SPSS v22); p < 0.05 was considered significant. Results Our MEDLINE search yielded 713 publications; after refinement, our NVIVO analysis suggested 282 valid gene features. Review of local FL cases accessioned between 2004 & 2012 was performed; this period ensured uniform follow-up and CI treatment strategies for all FL patients. Patients were classified as WW (68 patients) & CI (98 patients), and then sub-classified as WW1 (WW without need for CI over the follow-up interval; 23 patients) and WW2 (WW requiring CI in the follow-up interval; 45 patients) and CI1 (CI without disease progression over the follow-up interval; 61 patients) and CI2 (CI with disease progression; 37 patients). Median follow-up time was 60 months in the WW group and 56 months in the CI group (Mann-Whitney p = 0.177). With the exception of FLIPI score in the WW class (higher on average in the WW2 sub-class), no other clinical factor differed significantly between the sub-classes. GE analyses suggested that ACTB in the WW group and MEK1 in the CI group might be most predictive of TTP. Table 1. TTP results by Cox-regression analysis for the WW group WW Variable Cox-Regression Model Co-efficient p-value Cox-Regression Model Linear Co-efficient 95% CI Age at diagnosis 0.56 0.98-1.04 Sex 0.34 0.67-3.19 Tumor Grade 0.41 0.40-9.48 Tumor Stage 0.54 0.69-2.04 FLIPI Score 0.06 0.97-3.6 ACTB Expression 0.006 1.4-7.74 Table 2. TTP results by cox-regression analysis for the CI group CI Variable Cox-Regression Model Co-efficient p-value Cox-Regression Model Linear Co-efficient 95% CI Age at diagnosis 0.34 0.99-1.04 Sex 0.96 0.48-2.16 Tumor Grade 0.92 0.43-2.13 Tumor Stage 0.17 0.874-2.11 FLIPI Score 0.4 0.47-1.35 MEK1 Expression 0.011 0.19-0.81 Conclusions To our knowledge, we have performed the first GE analysis of FL cases classified by intervention, and have identified GE features predictive of disease progression or requirement of intervention (as in the WW group). In the CI group, identification of MEK1 as a major prognostic player echoes previous work studying the MAP-kinase pathway in FL. In the WW group, however, identification of ACTB as a potential prognostic player is a novel observation requiring validation, especially since this gene is ubiquitously expressed across multiple cell types. Figure 1. WW TTP, stratified by ACTB expression Figure 1. WW TTP, stratified by ACTB expression Figure 2. CI TTP, stratified by MEK1 expression Figure 2. CI TTP, stratified by MEK1 expression Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.273 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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