MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2593772058 · doi:10.1182/blood.v106.11.604.604

Insights into Disease Evolution of Transformed Follicular Lymphoma Derived from Cytogenetics.

2005· article· en· W2593772058 on OpenAlexaff
Nathalie A. Johnson, Abdul Al‐Tourah, Douglas E. Horsman, Joseph M. Connors, Randy D. Gascoyne

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLymphomaFollicular lymphomaBiopsyDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaCytogeneticsPathologyInternal medicineMedicineBiologyChromosomeGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Follicular lymphoma (FL) is an indolent lymphoma with a median survival of 8 years. Transformation to diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a major cause of mortality. The critical events leading to transformation are still unknown. Studies looking at the clonal cytogenetic evolution of FL have implicated −6q, +7, +12, −17p, +der(18), +X and abnormalities in chromosomes 1 or 8 as poor prognostic factors. Methods: We investigated the effect of these abnormalities and the number of alterations per tumor (NAPT) on the risk of developing transformed lymphoma (TLy) in a cohort of FL patients treated at the British Columbia Cancer Agency (BCCA) from 1983 to 2005. Karyotypes were determined on all samples by classic G banding technique. NAPT and the presence of the previously mentioned abnormalities were determined. TLy was defined as a DLBCL or Burkitt-like or composite histology (focal DLBCL with residual FL) on repeat biopsy or the presence of one of the following clinical features: rapid discordant nodal growth, sudden rise in LDH (≥2x baseline), unusual extranodal involvement or hypercalcemia. 279 FL biopsies had available karyotypes and clinical information required for this analysis. Results: With a median follow up time of 9.5 years, 54 patients (19%) developed TLy. The mean NAPT in the initial biopsy specimen was similar whether or not TLy developed (5.3 vs 5.0). The mean NAPT in patients who developed TLy early (≤2 years) was not greater than in those who developed TLy late (> 2 years) (4.8 vs 5.2). The incidence of specific cytogenetic changes was comparable to what is reported in the literature: +X (24%), 6q- (22%), +7 (15%), +12 (10%), −17p (9%), der (18) (24%) and abnormalities in chromosomes 1 (35%) or 8 (5%). These changes did not appear to influence the risk of developing TLy nor were they more prevalent in those who developed TLy. In 12 cases where the initial and TLy karyotypes could be compared, two patterns of cytogenetic evolution emerged. In 4 cases, the initial karyotype was clearly present in the TLy karyotype, including additional secondary cytogenetic abnormalities. In the remaining 8 cases, karyotypes of the TLy lacked many of the cytogenetic abnormalities that were present in the initial biopsy, except the t(14;18) or variant. Three out of the 8 cases had a lower NAPT in the TLy. Overall, there was no correlation between the NAPT of the initial and TLy biopsies (r= −0.38 p=0.3). Amongst the 12 paired specimens, the incidence of MYC breakpoints (8q24) and P53 deletions (17p13) were greater in the TLy karyotype (25% vs 0% and 16% vs 0%, respectively). Conclusions: The karyotype in FL at diagnosis does not influence the risk of transformation and cannot be used to predict which patients will transform early. Furthermore, there is no correlation between the NAPT in the karyotypes of the paired specimens (FL→DLBCL) even though the involvement of MYC and P53 is more prevalent in the TLy karyotypes. We hypothesize that transformation is a random event that can occur in FL cells that are less clonally evolved than those represented in the initial biopsy, analogous to a “FL stem cell”. Alternatively, the initial biopsy may not have captured the particular clone that eventually resulted in transformation, favoring subclone selection rather than clonal evolution. Newer technologies that study the genome and proteome in more detail, including the effect of the microenvironment may improve our understanding of the critical events leading to FL transformation.

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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations4
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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