The Impact of Upfront Autologous Transplant on the Survival of Adult Patients with ALCL and PTCL-NOS According to Their <i>ALK</i>, <i>DUSP22</i> and <i>TP63</i> Gene Rearrangement Status - a Joined Nordic Lymphoma Group and Mayo Clinic Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: Recent results from two independent patient series have shown that chromosomal rearrangements of DUSP22 (DUSP22r+) and TP63 (TP63r+) can predict outcome in ALK-negative anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALK-ALCL) and peripheral T-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified (PTCL-NOS) with morphologic features resembling ALK-ALCL (Parilla-Castellar E, Blood 2014; Pedersen MB, Blood 2017). While DUSP22r+ is predictive for excellent survival similar to that of ALK+ALCL after CHOP/CHOP-like therapy, the rarely occurring TP63r+ is associated with an aggressive clinical behavior and poor outcome. The largest subgroup, i.e. patients with neither ALK nor DUSP22 nor TP63 rearrangements (triple negative), show a 5 year (yr) overall survival (OS) intermediate between that of ALK-/DUSP22r+ and ALK-/TP63r+ patients. The aim of the present study was to assess the impact of upfront high-dose therapy with autologous stem cell transplant (HDT/ASCT) on outcome in adult ALCL and PTCL-NOS patients according to their ALK, DUSP22 and TP63 status. The survival results from the two published series were pooled with those of a Nordic Lymphoma Group trial, the NLG-T-01 (d'Amore et al, JCO 2012), where patients were treated with 1st line CHOEP/CHOP followed, in chemosensitive cases, by upfront HDT/ASCT. Methods: Fluorescence in situ hybridization was performed on sections of previously constructed tissue microarrays using break-apart probes for the DUSP22-IRF4 and TP63 loci and a dual-fusion probe for TBL1XR1/TP63 fusion [inv(3)(q26q28)]. Evaluation of DUSP22 and TP63 rearrangements was performed in a blinded fashion without knowledge of PTCL subtype, clinical course, or outcome. Three independent patient cohorts were included: (i) one from Mayo Clinic consisting of 31 DUSP22r-, ALK-ALCL and PTCL-NOS (triple negative: 25; TP63r+: 6); (ii) one from Denmark consisting of 93 DUSP22r-, ALK-ALCL and PTCL-NOS (triple negative: 90; TP63r+: 3); and one from the NLG-T-01 trial consisting of 46 ALK-ALCL and PTCL-NOS (triple negative: 37; TP63r+: 1; DUSP22r+: 8), leading to a total study population of 170 patients. ALK+ ALCL was not included in the analysis, since no patients with this histology entered the NLG-T-01 trial. Association of genetic subtype with OS was assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional models for hazard rate ratios (HR). Significant differences were defined as P <0.05. Results: The eight DUSP22r+ patients (7 ALK-ALCL and 1 PTCL-NOS) from NLG-T-01 had a 5-yr OS of 83%, (95%CI 27-97), similar to that reported for DUSP22r+ in the Mayo and Danish cohorts (90% and 80%, respectively). No lymphoma-related events were observed in this subset. The only event was a septic death due to HDT-induced cytopenias in a patient who was in complete remission (CR). Among the 162 patients with DUSP22r-, ALK-ALCL and PTCL-NOS, those consolidated with HDT/ASCT (n=47) had a significantly better outcome (5-yr OS: 45%) than those treated with induction chemotherapy alone (5-yr OS: 30%) (n=115) (P=0.01). The patients in the HDT/ASCT group were younger (P<0.001) and had more advanced stage disease (P=0.002). The improvement in OS persisted when the analysis was limited to transplant eligible patients and adjusted for age and stage (HR 0.52 95%CI 29-91, P=0.023) or International Prognostic Index (IPI) groups (HR 0.49, 95%CI 20-82, P=0.006). Of the 10 TP63r+ patients found within the pooled cohort, 6 were transplant eligible. Of these, 5 were not transplanted (intention-to-treat) while one was (Nordic trial). The latter patient achieved a still ongoing long-term CR, while all others died of lymphoma progression. Conclusion: In ALK-ALCL and PTCL-NOS patients from the NLG-T-01 trial, DUSP22r+ was associated with a very good outcome, similar to that seen in DUSP22r+ patients who had not undergone upfront autologous transplant. This observation supports the impression that upfront HDT/ASCT may not be of benefit in these patients. TP63r+ predicted poor outcome in non-transplanted patients. The impact of HDT/ASCT in the TP63r+ setting could not be adequately evaluated, since only one patient from the NLG-T-01 trial cohort was found to be TP63r+. Notably, this patient was the only survivor of the TP63r+ subset. For DUSP22r-, ALK-ALCL and PTCL-NOS patients taken as one group, those who received upfront HDT/ASCT had a superior survival compared to their age- and IPI-matched non-transplanted counterparts. Disclosures Ellin: ROCHE: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI: Consultancy. Mannisto: Roche: Honoraria, Other: Travel expence; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel expence; Amgen: Other: Travel expence; Novartis: Other: Travel expence; Celgene: Other: Travel expence; Gilead: Other: Travel expence; Pfizer: Honoraria; SOBI: Honoraria. Cerhan: Janssen: Other: Scientific Advisory Board (REMICADELYM4001); Janssen: Other: Multiple Myeloma Registry Steering . Toldbod: Takeda Pharma: Honoraria.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".