MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2994454378 · doi:10.1182/blood.v108.11.812.812

Strong p53 Expression Is an Independent Predictor of Outcome in De Novo Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) Treated with Either CHOP or CHOP-R.

2006· article· en· W2994454378 on OpenAlexaff
Pedro Farinha, Laurie H. Sehn, Brian Skinnider, Lin Wu, Nancy Patten, Sim Truong, Joseph M. Connors, Randy D. Gascoyne

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaTissue microarrayCHOPRituximabLymphomaImmunohistochemistryInternal medicinePopulationOncologyMedicineclone (Java method)PathologyCancer researchBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: The addition of rituximab to CHOP (CHOP-R) chemotherapy has resulted in an improved outcome for patients with DLBCL and has recently been shown to diminish the prognostic impact of two recognized biomarkers, namely Bcl-2 and Bcl-6. In the CHOP era, p53 mutations in DLBCL were associated with an aggressive clinical course and shortened survival. Using immunohistochemistry and mutational analysis, p53 over-expression and mutational status were examined in a population-based cohort of DLBCL patients treated with CHOP or CHOP-R (Sehn et al, J Clin Oncol2005; 23: 5027–33). Method: We analyzed 155 patients from a total cohort of 292 patients based on available paraffin blocks with sufficient tissue for interpretable immunohistochemistry for all antigens. All were initial diagnostic biopsies of de novo DLBCL cases accrued between 1999 and 2002 at the BCCA. HIV+ patients or those with active secondary malignancies were excluded. Tissue microarrays (TMA) were built using duplicate 0.6mm cores from paraffin embedded formalin fixed (FFPE) diagnostic biopsies and stained with antibodies against CD10, Bcl-6, MUM1, Bcl-2, p53 and p21. DLBCL cases were assigned to GCB or non-GCB subgroups based on the method of Hans et al., Blood 103: 275–82 (2004). Strong nuclear expression of the p53 antibody (clone DO7) was defined as high intensity (3/3) expression in >50% of the malignant cells. The p53 gene mutational analysis was performed on this subset of cases with DNA extracted from FFPE samples using the AmpliChip™ p53 test (developed in Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.). Results: Patients were treated with either CHOP (n = 77) or CHOP-R (n = 78). Their clinical characteristics, including the IPI factors, were evenly matched. The two treatment cohorts represent consecutive eras of therapy and thus the median follow-up of living patients was 5.1 and 4.0 y for CHOP vs CHOP-R, respectively. Of the 155 patients, 75 had a GCB phenotype and 80 non-GCB, with similar distribution in both treatment groups. There were 19 strong p53-positive cases (19/155 or 12.3%). Ten p53-positive cases were GCB and 9 were non-GCB. All 19 strong p53-positive cases were negative for p21 expression and 16/17 analyzable cases had p53 mutations. Univariate analysis of the entire cohort (n = 155) revealed that both IPI and p53 expression were of prognostic importance (p < 0.0001). In multivariate analysis, strong p53 and IPI were independent predictors of OS (p = 0.005 and p < 0.0001, respectively). Importantly, when analyzed by treatment era, strong p53 expression remained significant in both CHOP (p=0.015) and CHOP-R groups (p=0.012). Conclusion: Strong p53 protein expression correlates with p53 mutations and is an independent prognostic factor for patients with DLBCL even when treated with CHOP-R. p53 mutations were found in both GCB and non-GCB subtypes. Importantly the prognostic impact of p53 is not diminished in the era of CHOP-R, identifying a subgroup of patients with inferior survival. Overall Survival for 155 DLBCL Based on p53 Status Overall Survival for 155 DLBCL Based on p53 Status

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 score0.003

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations17
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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