Faculty Opinions recommendation of Impact of the tumor microenvironment on prognosis in follicular lymphoma is dependent on specific treatment protocols.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The clinical behavior of follicular lymphoma is largely determined by properties of the non-malignant tumor microenvironment. The precise nature of the cell populations is still unclear and published data on their prognostic significance are highly conflicting. This may be partly due to heterogeneous composition and treatments.DESIGN AND METHODS: Pre-treatment biopsy samples of patients with follicular lymphoma treated in an EORTC/BNLI trial comparing fludarabine to cyclophosphamide, vincristine and prednisone (CVP) chemotherapy could be retrieved for 61 patients in five European countries. Immunohistochemical investigations were performed evaluate tumor cell characteristics, T-cell subsets, follicular dendritic cells and macrophages and associations with clinical outcome were studied.RESULTS: Some markers showed a homogeneous prognostic impact, while others had a different nd sometimes opposite effect in the treatment arms. CD69 expression on tumor cells was a poor prognostic sign and an interfollicular infiltrate of FoxP3-positive T cells was a good prognostic sign irrespective of the treatment arm. It is suggestive that a dense infiltrate of FoxP3-positive T cells, dense and interfollicular infiltrate of CD68-positive macrophages and complete follicular dendritic meshworks were associated with a favorable time to progression in CVP-treated patients, while being poor prognostic sign in fludarabine-treated patients.CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that characteristic properties of the microenvironment in follicular lymphoma determines the responses to essentially different chemotherapeutic approaches. These data may provide an explanation for the highly conflicting results on immunohistochemical markers and the prognostic role of the microenvironment in follicular lymphoma reported thus far and lay the basis for the development of predictive assays to tailor treatment in patients with follicular lymphoma. PMID: 19059937 Funding information This work was supported by: NCI NIH HHS, United States Grant ID: 5U10 CA11488-37 NCI NIH HHS, United States Grant ID: 5U10 CA011488-38
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 | 0.007 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.177 | 0.125 |
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".