MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Gray Zone Lymphoma (GZL) with Features Intermediate Between Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) and Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma (cHL): Pathologic Classification and Clinical Outcomes from a Multicenter Consensus Study

2016· article· en· W2596450036 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrew M. Evens, Monika Pilichowska, Stefania Pittaluga, Judith A. Ferry, Jessica Hemminger, Jennifer A. Kanakry, Laurie H. Sehn, Tatyana Feldman, Jeremy S. Abramson, Francisco J. Hernandez‐Ilizaliturri, Izidore S. Lossos, Oliver W. Press, Timothy S. Fenske, Jonathan W. Friedberg, Julie M. Vose, Kristie A. Blum, Deepa Jagadeesh, Gaurav K. Gupta, Randy D. Gascoyne, Elaine S. Jaffe

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaBCL6LymphomaMedicineCD30Not Otherwise SpecifiedCD15PathologyB cellImmunologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND: GZL (B-cell lymphoma, unclassifiable, with features intermediate between DLBCL andcHL) was first described in 2005 and included in the 2008 WHO classification. The majority of cases present withmediastinal disease and share features withcHL and primarymediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL). Non-mediastinal lymphomas with similar features have also been reported. Due to the relative rarity and the diagnostic complexity of this disease, data on GZL are limited and further description of this entity is desired. METHODS: Clinical data from cases originally diagnosed as GZL were collected from 15 academic centers across the United States and Canada (Evens et al. Am J Hematol, 2015). In an attempt to further characterize the diagnostic features and clinical correlations, 73 cases (including 62 cases from the aforementioned series and 11 subsequently collected cases) were obtained and submitted for central pathology review using criteria of the 2016 revisedWHO classification. All diagnostic samples were evaluated with a panel comprising CD20, CD79a, PAX5, OCT2, BCL6, MUM1, CD30, CD15, CD3 and EBV by in situ hybridization (EBER). Beyond the tumor cellimmunoprofile, diagnostic criteria included: tumor cell density and morphology, necrosis, and the microenvironment. Five cases were rejected for insufficient material/technical issues. Collectively, 68 cases were evaluated by 5 experthematopathologists and consensus diagnosis was reached at multi-headed scope review. Additionally, clinical data were obtained to analyze patient (pt) characteristics and disease outcomes. RESULTS: Of 68 cases given an original diagnosis of GZL from academic institutions, only 26 cases (38%) were confirmed as GZL on consensus review. Pt characteristics of these 26 GZL cases included: 15M/11F; median age 37 years (range 19-72); 42% B symptoms; 61% anemia; 35% increased LDH; and 33% with hypoalbuminemia. 11/26 (42%) biopsies were mediastinal in origin, and in an additional 4 cases, a mediastinal mass was present clinically; 11 (42%) had only peripheral lymphadenopathy/disease (ie, non-mediastinal). 60% of pts had stage I/II disease with 16% having stage IV. GZL cases were characterized by high tumor cell density and paucity of a mixed inflammatory background (both contrary as seen in cHL). The immunohistochemical profiles of the 26 consensus GZL cases are noted in the Table. Notably, only 1 GZL case was EBV positive. 42/68 (62%) of the original cases were reclassified as follows: nodular sclerosis (NS)cHL, n=27 [n=10 of which werecHL, NS grade 2 (cHL-NS2)] and one lymphocyte-richcHL (LRCHL), n=1; DLBCL NOS, n=4; PMBCL, n=2; nodular lymphocyte predominant Hodgkin lymphoma (NLPHL), n=3; EBV positive LBCL, n=3; and B-cell lymphoproliferative disorder, n=1. Most cases ofcHL diagnosed as GZL had strong CD20 expression. Further, cHL-NS2 was often misdiagnosed as GZL usually due to confluent growth of lacunar cells. Clinically, therapy received and outcomes were available for 25 of 26 of the aforementioned consensus GZL cases; the overall response rate (ORR) for these consensus confirmed GZL cases was 64% (complete remission (CR) 48%) with 28% ofpts experiencing primary refractory disease to frontline therapy. Relapse rates by primary chemotherapy regimen for thesepts were: ABVD 5/6 (83%); CHOP 7/17 (41%); and EPOCH 1/2 (50%). Among consensus GZLpts with relapsed disease, 71% underwent autologous SCT. With a median follow-up of 40 months, the 3-year PFS was 44% with 3-year OS of 90% for the consensus GZL pts. Among all other cases that were reclassified to a non-GZL diagnostic entity, the ORR was 75% (CR 67%) with 3-year PFS and OS rates of 52% and 80%, respectively. This included a relapse rate of 86% amongpts with cHL-NS2. CONCLUSIONS: Accurate diagnosis of GZL remains challenging. Relative rarity of the cases and overlap withcHL, especially thecHL-NS variant with lymphocytic depletion and confluent lacunar cells (also known as cHL-NS2), contribute to this difficulty. Diagnosis should be based on integration of architectural, cytological andimmunophenotypic features. In addition, relapse rates are high with standard chemotherapy regimens, especially ABVD-based therapy. Enhanced biologic understanding and improved therapeutic strategies are needed for GZL. Disclosures Evens: Takeda: Other: Advisory board. Abramson:Abbvie: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy. Fenske:Celgene: Honoraria; Millennium/Takeda: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Seatle Genetics: Honoraria. Friedberg:Bayer: Honoraria, Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board. Blum:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.264 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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