MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prognostic Factors in Primary Cutaneous Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma: Clinical and Molecular Characterization of a Subset with Worse Outcome.

2007· article· en· W2991704241 on OpenAlexaff
Denise K. Woo, Chris Jones, Monique N. Vanoli-Storz, Sabine Köhler, Sunil Reddy, Ranjana H. Advani, Richard T. Hoppe

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders research
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Health Services and Policy Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternal medicineMedicineUnivariate analysisProportional hazards modelOncologyRetrospective cohort studyLogistic regressionMultivariate analysisGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background and Objectives: Primary cutaneous anaplastic large cell lymphoma (pcALCL) has an overall favorable prognosis. However, we have previously suggested that patients with extensive limb involvement may have a worse outcome (J Am Acad Dermatol49:1049, 2003). The primary objective was to assess the potential prognostic factors in pcALCL, in particular the role of extensive regional single-limb disease (ERSL-D), defined as presentation with or progression to T2b or T2c involvement of a single limb, or T3b involvement of > 3 contiguous body regions. Our secondary objectives were to study the gene expression profiles and treatment responses of our patients with pcALCL that may correlate with clinical outcome. Patients and Methods: This was a retrospective study involving 48 patients with pcALCL diagnosed and managed at Stanford from 1990–2005. The potential prognostic factors for overall and disease-specific survivals (OS and DSS) were analyzed using the KM method and univariate and multivariate Cox regression. Cox regression was also used to identify risk factors for progresson to extracutaneous disease. Gene expression profiles were studied using cDNA microarrays. Results: The OS and DSS rates of the entire cohort were 76% and 85% at 5 yrs and 70% and 85% at 10 yrs, respectively. Our univariate analysis demonstrated age, ERSL-D, and progression to extracutaneous disease (as a time-dependent variable) as significant prognostic factors for OS, while ERSL-D and progression to extracutaneous disease were significant for DSS. Sex, presence of spontaneous regression, and lesion site were not significantly assoicated with OS or DSS. Patients with T1 (solitary skin lesion) disease had an overall more favorable OS and DSS compared to those with T2 (regional skin involvement) and T3 (generalized skin involvement) disease, although the differences were not statisticlly significant. In our multivariate analysis, age (HR 1.83, 95% CI 1.02–3.26) and progression to extracutaneous disease (HR 6.42, 95% CI 1.39–29.68) remained significant for OS, while ERSL-D (HR 29.31, 95% CI 1.72–500.82) and progression to extracutaneous disease (HR 13.12, 95% CI 1.03–167.96) remained independent prognostic factors for DSS. Presentation with T3 disease was a significant risk factor for progression to extracutaneous disease (HR 10.20, 95% CI 1.84–56.72). Microarray studies of 14 samples from 3 ERSL-D and 7 classic pcALCL patients were performed. The patients with ERSL-D and classic pcALCL formed distinct, separate clusters. Classic pcALCL showed concurrent upregulation of epidermal genes analogous to normal skin, while ERSL-D lacked this signature. Genes upregulated in ERSL-D (after subtraction of epidermal genes) included STAT5A, IL2Rα, HIPK2, WDR10 and those down-regulated included RXRA. These gene profiling data suggest that targeting IL2R (denileukin diftitox) or STAT5 (HDAC inhibitors) may be appropriate in ERSL-D while therapeutic resistance to bexarotene may be linked to lack of RXRA gene expression. Conclusion: Our data suggest that patients with ERSL-D have a worse clinical outcome associated with a distinct gene expression profile. More aggressive and targeted treatments may be indicated in this subgroup.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.278 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicCutaneous lymphoproliferative disorders researchFrench-language works237,207