Retrospective Study of CD20 Expression Loss in Relapsed or Refractory B-Cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: CD20-targeted therapies are widely used in the management of B-cell lymphomas. Re-treatment with CD20-directed agents is common; however, previous research has demonstrated loss of CD20 expression at relapse in a subset of patients. Methods: In this single-center retrospective cohort of 243 patients, CD20 analysis was performed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and/or flow cytometry at diagnosis and at relapse if a biopsy was performed. Results: Of 109 patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell lymphoma, 59 patients with CD20-positive lymphoma at diagnosis underwent a biopsy at relapse for a total of 76 biopsies across all relapses. The rate of partial or complete CD20 expression loss was 11.9% (four patients with partial loss, three patients with complete loss). There were four cases of CD20 loss at first relapse (three IHC, one flow cytometry), two at second relapse (one IHC, one IHC and flow cytometry), and one at fifth relapse (IHC and flow cytometry). CD20 antigen escape was observed in marginal zone lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). All patients with CD20 expression loss previously received rituximab. Among patients with CD20 antigen escape, 85.7% had stage IV disease, and median overall survival after CD20 loss was 4 months. In the group of five patients with indolent lymphoma and CD20 expression loss, three patients (60%) had concurrent transformation to high-grade lymphoma. Conclusions: This study, which reinforces the importance of repeating a biopsy at relapse before implementing CD20-directed therapy, is particularly relevant given the widespread use of rituximab along with the emerging significance of CD20-targeted bispecific antibodies in the management of B-cell lymphomas.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".