Retrospective study of intravascular large B-cell lymphoma cases diagnosed in Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Intravascular large B-cell lymphoma (IVL) is an extremely rare malignancy, mainly studied through European and Asian series. Due to the low incidence of this condition, our understanding of the clinical presentation as well as the management of IVL relies on a limited number of patients.We report the largest North American study to date on IVL with 29 cases from Quebec hospital diagnosed between 1990 and 2016. The aim of our study is to describe the clinical presentations, diagnostic and staging procedures, therapeutic management and clinical outcomes of IVL patients in our population and compare the disease phenotype to European and Asian series reported.In our cohort, all patients had stage IV IVL at diagnosis, with a median age of 66.7 years (range 47.2-90.8). Clinical presentation was characterized by constitutional symptoms (100%), poor ECOG-PS (100% ≥ 2), cytopenias (93% anemia), and elevated lactate dehydrogenase (97%) and C-reactive protein (96%). Our cohort presented with mainly cutaneous and neurological symptoms. However, neurological involvement (75.9%) was predominant and no "cutaneous variant" was observed; this differs from European literature, where "classical" IVL is reported with mainly cutaneous involvement. Two of our Caucasian patients presented "Asian variant" IVL; this observation is not unusual, as cases of "classical" IVL have been reported in Asians and "Asian variant" IVL has been reported in Europeans. All patients were classified according to their immunophenotypic features in 3 different subgroups (CD5 or CD5CD10, CD5CD10, CD5CD10) with no difference in outcome. Finally, 62% of our cohort received anthracycline-based chemotherapy and 53% of them achieved a complete response. After a median follow-up of 328 days, OS at 3 years was 42.7% for the entire cohort and 47.4% for the cases with in vivo diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Unlike European studies on "classical" IVL, our study showed that the French Canadian presentation of this subtype of IVL is more frequently observed with neurological rather than cutaneous involvement. Finally, an early diagnosis is of primary importance since almost a quarter of patients receive a post-mortem diagnosis. A prompt diagnosis allows the introduction of an early treatment, associated with a CR in 53% of patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".