MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417004880 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-661

Integrated clinico-biological profiling identifies a high-risk epigenetic signature in Mantle Cell Lymphoma: A lysa study

2025· article· en· W4417004880 on OpenAlexaff
Sophie Kaltenbach, Bruno Tesson, Guillaume Charbonnier, Martí Duran‐Ferrer, Barbara Burroni, Yannick Le Bris, Elena Robin-Marieton, Loïc Chartier, Mehdi Latiri, Patrick Villarèse, Marie‐Hélène Delfau‐Larue, Alexis Claudel, Catherine Thieblemont, Fabrice Jardin, Franck Morschhauser, Clémentine Sarkozy, Benoît Tessoulin, Stéphane Jamain, Violaine Latapie, Vincent Ribrag, Wolfgang Hiddemann, Martin Dreyling, Eva Hoster, Elizabeth Macintyre, Vahid Asnafi, José I. Martín‐Subero, Steven Le Gouill, Sı́lvia Beà, Olivier Hermine, Aurore Touzart

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHotel Dieu Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMantle cell lymphomaEpigeneticsDNA methylationTranscriptomeMultivariate analysisGene expression profilingSurvival analysisCDKN2A

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Immunochemotherapy remains the cornerstone of treatment for Mantle Cell Lymphoma (MCL). However, 25% of patients experience early progression, with survival rates of less than two years. Current prognostic tools, such as the MCL International Prognostic Index (MIPI), and poor prognostic histological and genetic features are insufficient for stratifying patients into individualized therapeutic strategies. This study aimed to identify biomarkers for high-risk MCL patients using an integrated analysis of clinical and biological factors. Methods: We analyzed data from 299 patients enrolled in the LyMa phase 3 trial, with a focus on high-risk patients, defined by refractoriness to immunochemotherapy or relapse within 12 months post-autologous stem cell transplantation. We used optical genome mapping (OGM) on frozen samples, alongside whole-exome sequencing (WES), RNA sequencing, and DNA methylation arrays analyses on FFPE tumor biopsies to identify genetic, transcriptomic and epigenetic alterations. Machine learning models, including random forest analysis and Partial Least-Squares Discriminant Analysis (PLS-DA), were employed to predict high-risk MCL status. Results: Among the 299 patients, 31 (10.4%) were identified as high-risk (HR) with a median overall survival of 8.5 months after relapse. HR patients exhibited significantly higher levels of LDH, higher-risk MIPI scores (45% vs. 16%, p<0.001), Ki-67 >30% (71% vs. 31%, p<0.001) and blastoid/pleomorphic histology (32% vs. 9%, p<0.001). In multivariate analysis, only high-risk MIPI score, and Ki-67 >30% were associated with HR MCL. These factors were insufficient to specifically capture HR patients, as one-third of long-term responders would have been misidentified as high-risk. The high-risk (HR) subgroup displayed a greater burden of complex genetic alterations, with significantly increased frequencies of TP53 alterations (OR 25.4, p < 0.001), CDKN2A deletions (OR 4.5, p = 0.015), RB1 deletions (OR 4.9, p = 0.024), MYC gains (OR 5.8, p = 0.047), and MIR17HG gains (OR 11.8, p = 0.013). To improve predictive accuracy, an integrative analysis combining well-established prognostic markers with gene alterations assessed by WES, was performed. Random forest analysis achieved a test accuracy of 91% when predicting HR MCL status, with a ROC AUC of 96%. The sensitivity was 84% and the specificity was 96%, with a misclassification rate of 14%. The most influential features included the Ki-67 index, histological subtype, TP53 alterations, MIPI score, and gains of MYC and MIR17HG. Unsupervised Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection (UMAP) analysis of gene expression profiling on 49 FFPE samples, including 15 HR MCLs, showed that HR MCLs tended to cluster together, but the distinction was not perfect. Supervised analyses, using PLS-DA, indicated potential overfitting, suggesting that transcriptomic signals alone are insufficient for perfect discrimination. In contrast, DNA methylation analysis of 29 FFPE samples, including 12 HR MCLs, revealed a distinct epigenetic signature that robustly discriminated HR MCLs from control cases. Supervised approaches (PLS-DA) identified differentially methylated probes (DMPs, n=225) that perfectly discriminated HR MCL from controls. Importantly, this epigenetic signature was validated in an independent cohort (Barcelona cohort, n=64). To explore the genome-wide impact of DNA methylation on gene expression, we performed correlation analyses between promoter methylation and transcriptomic data across all protein-coding genes. A subset of genes showed significant correlations, with a predominant inverse relationship in HR cases, absent in controls, indicating that promoter hypermethylation may drive transcriptional deregulation in this subgroup. Notably, CHL1, a tumor suppressor, and KLHL6, associated with chemoresistance, demonstrated strong inverse correlations between methylation and expression, supporting their involvement in HR MCL pathogenesis. Conclusion: This study provides an integrated characterization of high-risk MCL, identifying a novel epigenetic signature that outperform traditional prognostic markers. Our baseline epigenetic approach may enhance patient stratification and support the development of personalized therapies. These results support the combined analysis of genetic and epigenetic features to capture MCL's full biological complexity.

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)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.274
Teacher spread0.260 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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