MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Differential Expression of TCF3 Target Genes Defines Subclasses of Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma with Striking Differences in Clinical Outcome Following R-CHOP Therapy

2016· article· en· W2610140576 on OpenAlexaff
Kathrin Tyryshkin, Yi D Li, David Good, Lois E. Shepherd, Tara Baetz, Michael J. Rauh, David P. LeBrun

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaVincristineLymphomaBiologyCancer researchBCL6PrednisoneCHOPRituximabOncologyCyclophosphamideMedicineB cellInternal medicineImmunologyGeneticsChemotherapyGerminal center

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is clinically and biologically heterogeneous. Whereas most patients are cured following conventional therapy with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (R-CHOP), a substantial minority are refractory or relapse. Identifying patients at high risk of poor outcomes at the time of diagnosis will make it possible to better choose alternative or experimental therapies. TCF3 (also called E2A) is a transcription factor required in B-lymphopoiesis. Gain-of-function somatic mutations that alter TCF3 or its regulatory partners are associated withBurkitt lymphoma (BL) but not DLBCL. These published findings suggest that biologically-defined, clinically-important subtypes of mature B-cell-derived lymphomas may be distinguished from one another based on differential expression of genes regulated by a master regulator of B-lymphoid biology, namely TCF3. Therefore, in the current study, we hypothesized that biologically- and clinically-important subtypes of DLBCL are distinguishable based upon differential expression of genes that are regulated in B-cells by TCF3. Methods: Fifty-nine subjects who presented with de novo DLBCL at Kingston General Hospital from 2001 to 2010 were identified for inclusion based on the availability of clinical data and sufficient biopsy material for extraction of adequate RNA. We used publically-available microarray-based gene expression and clinical data to identify 99 candidate TCF3 target genes whose differential expression was associated with 3-year overall survival following R-CHOP therapy; these transcripts were represented in aNanoStringCodeSet. Total RNA was purified from cores harvested from representative areas of diagnostic, pre-treatment, formaldehyde-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) biopsy samples. Twenty-five transcripts whose abundance, individually, was associated with 3-year overall survival in our own cohort were chosen for further study. Results: Unsupervised hierarchical cluster analysis based on relative expression of the 25 TCF3 target genes resolved all except two cases into distinct clusters, denoted A and B, that contained 21 and 36 cases, respectively (heat map at left). In comparing these clusters, Cluster B was associated with rearrangement of MYC (p=0.02) as determined by FISH; no statistically significant associations were evident with age, sex, IPI score, B-symptoms, bulky disease or expression of MYC or BCL2 as determined by immunohistochemistry. Kaplan Meyer (KM) analysis revealed strikingly inferior overall and event-free survival (p=0.0005 for each) for Cluster A cases (KM curve at right). Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate that differential expression of TCF3 target genes ascertained in pre-treatment FFPE biopsy samples of de novo DLBCL defines biologically distinctive subsets of cases with distinctive clinical outcomes following R-CHOP therapy. If validated in an independent cohort, these results may inform both clinical management and the development of new targeted therapies for high-risk cases. Figure 1 Figure 1. Figure 2 Figure 2. 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)0.000
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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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