MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4252571225 · doi:10.1182/blood.v110.11.49.49

Paraffin-Based 6-Gene Model Predicts Outcome of Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Patients Treated with R-CHOP.

2007· article· en· W4252571225 on OpenAlexaff
Raquel Malumbres, Nathalie A. Johnson, Laurie H. Sehn, Yasodha Natkunam, Rob Tibshirani, Javier Briones, Joseph M. Connors, Ronald Levy, Randy D. Gascoyne, Izidore S. Lossos

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaInternal medicineVincristineMedicinePrednisoneCHOPOncologyLymphomaRituximabAnthracyclineCyclophosphamideInternational Prognostic IndexGastroenterologyCancerChemotherapyBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a heterogeneous disease characterized by highly variable clinical outcomes. It is therefore of paramount importance to be able to predict the outcome of patients at the time of diagnosis. Previously, we constructed a 6 gene model for outcome prediction of DLBCL patients treated with anthracycline-based chemotherapies (Lossos et al NEJM 2004, 350:1829). However, the standard therapy has evolved to rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone (R-CHOP). Subset analyses of clinical trials have suggested that some of the prognostic factors lose their predictive power in R-CHOP treated patients. Consequently, the molecular gold standard for survival prediction in R-CHOP treated patients has not been established. Herein, we evaluated the predictive power of the 6-gene model in R-CHOP treated DLBCL patients. We have employed new methodology that allows quantitation of gene expression from paraffin embedded, fixed tissues. Methods: RNA was extracted from 100 paraffin-embedded specimens (Chen et al Diagn Mol Pathol 2007, 16:61), from patients with DLBCL treated with R-CHOP in British Columbia (73) and at the University of Miami (27). Expression of the 6 genes comprising the model was measured in these samples and the mortality-prediction score was calculated for each patient, as reported previously. Results: The study group consisted of 100 patients with a median age of 58 y (range, 16–92y) that were followed for a median of 2.1 years (range, 0.1–5.6). Distribution according to IPI: 0–1 factor, 42; 2 factors, 24; 3 factors, 19; and ≥4 factors, 14. RNA of sufficient quality and quantity was successfully extracted from all the 100 paraffin embedded specimens tested, some of which had been stored for up to 6 years. The mortality-prediction score derived from the model divided patients into low-risk (50%) and high-risk (50%) subgroups with significantly different overall survival (OS) (p=0.02) and progression free survival (PFS) (p=0.02). Notably the OS was similar between the groups during the 1st year, due to the inclusion of patients with advanced age and poor performance status, but it was markedly different beyond the first 2 years, with the 3 year OS of 80% and 50% in the low risk and high risk groups, respectively. The predictive power of the 6-gene model was independent of the IPI prognostic factors for prediction of OS (P=0.06) and PFS (p=0.01) in these patients. Conclusions: The prognostic value of the 6-gene model remains significant in the era of R-CHOP treatment. Further, using the new RNA extraction methodology, we demonstrate that the model can be applied to routinely available formalin-fixed paraffin blocks from initial diagnostic biopsies, even after long term storage. Following validation in an independent cohort of patients, the six gene model may be practically applied in routine clinical practice.

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations11
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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