MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2902987035 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-99-116677

Prediction and Characterization of Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) Cell of Origin (COO) Subtypes Using Genomic Features from Targeted Next-Generation Sequencing

2018· article· en· W2902987035 on OpenAlexaff
Sally E. Trabucco, Ethan Sokol, Jay A. Moore, Sophia L. Maund, Garrett M. Frampton, Vincent A. Miller, Jeffrey M. Venstrom, Lee A. Albacker, Laurie H. Sehn, Mikkel Z. Oestergaard, Christopher R. Bolen

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsSpinal Cord Injury BCUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaCancer researchMedicineBiologyOncologyLymphomaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: DLBCL has two COO subtypes: Activated B Cell (ABC) and Germinal Center B cell (GCB). Patients with the ABC subtype have a poor prognosis compared to those with GCB, and COO can be predictive for response to some new therapeutic agents. Traditionally, COO subtype has been determined by microarray (ABC, GCB, unclassified), IHC-based algorithms (GCB or non-GCB), or expression-based Nanostring Lymph2Cx (ABC, GCB, unclassified). Some reports have failed to show a prognostic difference between GCB and non-GCB when employing IHC-based algorithms. This has led some to adopt the Lymph2Cx assay as the preferred method to assess COO, but in some cases the tumor content or RNA quality is inadequate to perform this assay. COO subtypes have differing gene mutations, with GCB typically characterized by EZH2 alterations and IGH:BCL2 translocations, while ABC is dominated by NF-KB and BCR signaling alterations such as MYD88 and CD79B short variants. Here we utilized mutational differences in COO subtypes to develop a COO DNA classification (COODC) model to predict COO from DNA-based features on a clinically utilized platform. Methods: Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) of DLBCL samples was performed using the DNA component of the FoundationOne® Heme platform; sequencing 465 genes for the GOYA trial (R-CHOP vs G-CHOP; N=499; NCT01287741), MAIN trial (R-CHOP +/- bevacizumab; N=44; NCT00486759), and cases from routine clinical care (FM-clinical; N=597). Gold standard COO classifications were determined in GOYA using the Lymph2Cx assay, and in MAIN using a modified Wright algorithm applied to a custom Nanostring expression panel. COODC was developed using a penalized lasso regression with 25-fold internal cross validation and cutoffs that optimize specificity and sensitivity. Concordance was calculated as the percentage of COODC calls matching the gold standard, excluding samples called unclassified in the gold standard or COODC. Results: We developed a novel DNA-based method to determine COO, which is 89% concordant with Lymph2Cx (Table) COODC was trained on 296 GOYA samples with Lymph2Cx COO calls and validated on 139 held-out samples from the same cohort (GOYA). Additional validation was performed on an independent first-line cohort (MAIN) and confirmed a high concordance (92%). COODC also provides prognostic value, confirming the worse prognosis of ABC (progression-free survival [PFS] hazard ratio [HR] 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1-2.4; p=0.011) and unclassified (PFS HR 1.9; 95% CI: 1.1-3.2; p=0.021) compared with GCB. This approach also allows investigation into the genomics and underlying features of COO subtypes. Alterations in BCL2, EZH2, and TNFRSF14 were important determinants of the GCB phenotype, consistent with the enrichment of GCB samples among the EZB cluster in Schmitz et al. (N Engl J Med 2018), or C3 in Chapuy et al. (Nat Med 2018). Alterations in MYD88 and CD79B were highly predictive of ABC subtype, as expected. Alterations in NOTCH1, NOTCH2, and BCL6 were all slightly predictive of ABC subtype, despite the mixed phenotype of the BN2, N1 (Schmitz et al. N Engl J Med 2018), and C1 (Chapuy et al. Nat Med 2018) groups. Novel features include decreased average copy number of chromosome 6p, which encodes the HLA locus, in ABC (p=0.0064), and increased frequency of T>A and T>G alterations in GCB (p<0.0001 for both). We identified 2 major mutational signatures associated with COO: COSMIC signature 23, corresponding to a canonical activation-induced cytidine deaminase signature, enriched in ABC (p=0.002), and COSMIC signature 3, which trends to increased frequency in GCB (p=0.13). Conclusions: We have developed a new and clinically relevant method for determining DLBCL COO in specimens with tumor purity as low as 20%, without the need for RNA or matched normal tissue. This method is 89% (GOYA) to 92% (MAIN) concordant with the Lymph2Cx assay and maintains prognostic value. Integrating COO with CGP enables insights into disease biology, including the identification of novel features associated with COO. We identified a difference in mutational signatures between ABC and GCB, suggesting that different origin cells may contribute to different mutational processes. Disclosures Trabucco: Foundation Medicine Inc: Employment. Sokol:Foundation Medicine: Employment. Moore:Foundation Medicine, Inc.: Employment. Maund:Genentech: Employment. Frampton:Foundation Medicine Inc: Employment, Other: Employee and stockholder. Miller:Foundation Medicine: Employment, Other: Ownership interests none PLC*; Revolution Medicines: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Venstrom:Genentech Inc: Employment. Albacker:Foundation Medicine Inc: Employment; Foundation Medicine Inc: Employment. Sehn:Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lundbeck: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Oestergaard:Roche: Employment, Other: Ownership interests PLC. Bolen:Roche: Other: Ownership interests PLC*.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 communication0.0010.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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