Review for "Gene expression profile unveils diverse biological effect of serum VitaminD in Hodgkin's and Diffuse Large B‐Cell Lymphoma"

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 4134-4134
Author(s):  
Gonzalo Gutierrez-Garcia ◽  
Teresa Cardesa ◽  
Luis Colomo ◽  
Fina Climent ◽  
Santiago Mercadal ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 4134 Gene expression profile (GEP) allows to distinguish two groups with different origin in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL): germinal-center (GC) and activated (ABC), with the latter having a significantly poorer outcome. However, GEP is a technique not available in current clinical practice. For this reason, attempts to reproduce GEP data by immunophenotyping algorithms have been made. The aim of this study was to apply the most popular algorithms in a series of patients with DLBCL homogeneously treated with immunochemotherapy, in order to assess the correlation with GEP data and their usefulness to predict response and outcome of the patients. One hundred fifty seven patients (80M/77F; median age 65 years) diagnosed with DLBCL in 5 institutions of the Grup per l'Estudi dels Limfomes de Catalunya I Balears (GELCAB) during a 5-year period, treated with Rituximab-containing regimens (in most cases, R-CHOP), in whom histological material to construct a tissue microarrays (TMA) was available, constituted the subjects of the present study. Four algorithms were applied: Colomo (Blood 2003, 101:78) using CD10, bcl-6 and MUM1/IRF4; Hans (Blood 2004, 103:275) using CD10, bcl-6 and MUM1/IRF4; Muris (J Pathol 2006, 208:714) using CD10 and MUM1/IRF4, and Choi (Clin Cancer Res 2009, 15:5494), using CD10, bcl-6, GCET1, FOXP1 and MUM1/IRF4. The thresholds used were those previously described. GEP studies were performed in 62 patients in whom fresh frozen material was available. Main clinical and evolutive data were recorded and analyzed. The proportion of positive cases for the different single antigens was as follows: CD10 26%, bcl-6 64%, GCET1 46%, FOXP1 78% and MUM1/IRF4 28%. The distribution of cases (GC vs. non-GC) according to the algorithms is detailed in the table. In 88 of 110 patients (80%) with all the antigens available, the patients were allocated in the same group (either GC or non-GC). When the immunochemistry was compared with GEP data, the sensitivity in the GC group was 59%, 52%, 70% and 40% for Colomo, Hans, Muris and Choi algorithms, respectively. The sensitivity in the non-GC group was 81%, 85%, 62% and 84%, respectively. On the other hand, the positive predictive value (PPV) in the GC group was 81%, 83%, 72% and 77%, respectively. In non-GC subset the PPV for the different algorithms was 59%, 55%, 72% and 52%, respectively. We observed a higher percentage of misclassified cases in the GC-phenotype subset than in the non-GC subgroup. None of the immunohistochemical algorithms showed a significant superiority as surrogate of GEP information among the others. The ability of GEP groups as well as of groups defined by the algorithms to predict complete response (CR) rate, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of the patients is showed in the table. Thus, whereas the GEP groups showed significant prognostic value for CR rate, PFS and OS, none of the immunohistochemical algorithms were able to predict the outcome. In conclusion, in a homogeneous series of DLBCL patients treated with immunochemotherapy, the different immunohistochemical algorithms were not able to mimic the GEP information. The prognostic impact of the groups defined by immunohistochemistry (GC vs. non-GC) was particularly low. N (%) CR rate N (%) 5-year PFS (%) 5-year OS (%) Colomo algorithm GC 53 (44) 39 (74) 48 54 Non-GC 68 (56) 53 (78) 55 62 Hans algorithm GC 61 (41) 47 (77) 54 60 Non-GC 88 (59) 67 (76) 52 59 Muris algorithm GC 87 (57) 63 (72) 48 57 Non-GC 65 (43) 51 (78) 56 63 Choi algorithm GC 45 (33) 32 (71) 48 54 Non-GC 90 (67) 70 (78) 52 61 Gene expression profile 30 (58) 25 (83) 76* 80** GC Activated 22 (42) 17 (77) 31* 45** * p=0.005, ** p=0.03. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


Blood ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (21) ◽  
pp. 143-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qi Shen ◽  
Zijun Yidan Xu-Monette ◽  
Ganiraju Manyam ◽  
Carlo Visco ◽  
Alexander Tzankov ◽  
...  

Abstract Context Akt plays an essential role in diverse cellular processes such as cell proliferation, cell growth and apoptosis. Dysregulation of Akt signaling has been shown to correlate with an inferior survival in patients with a number of solid tumors and some hematologic malignances. The prognostic significance of Akt expression and the gene expression profile of Akt activation in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) have not been thoroughly assessed. Objective In this study, we investigated Akt activation and analyzed its prognostic importance in a large cohort of patients with de novoDLBCL treated with R-CHOP immunochemotherapy. We also characterized the gene expression profile of DLBCL with activated Akt. Patients The study group consisted of 493 DLBCL patients treated with R-CHOP. These cases were organized as a part of the International DLBCL R-CHOP Consortium Program Study, and diagnosed according to the WHO criteria. Patients with primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma, primary cutaneous DLBCL, primary central nervous system DLBCL, and DLBCLs transformed from a low-grade B-cell lymphoma or associated with HIV infection were excluded. Methods Immunohistochemical studies (IHC) were performed in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded sections of tissue microarrays to evaluate the expression of phosphorylated (activated) Akt and other relevant markers. Genetic alterations were examined by FISH for MYC, BCL-2, and BCL-6 translocations and sequencing for TP53 mutation. Gene expression profiling (GEP) was performed to characterize the gene expression profile in Akt-activated DLBCL. The cell-of-origin (COO) subtypes were determined by GEP (gold standard) and IHC. Results Phosphorylated (activated) Akt (pAkt) expression was detected in 98 of 493 (20%) DLBCL tumors including 49 of 253 (19%) GCB DLBCL and 49 of 240 (20%) ABC DLBCL. In the GCB subtype, MYC, BCL-2 and MYC/BCL-2 translocations were more frequently found in pAkt+ DLBCL compared with pAkt- DLBCL (P=0.04, 0.007 and 0.03, respectively). In contrast, translocations of these genes were rare and detected equally in pAkt+ and pAkt- subgroups within the ABC subtype (P=0.7, 0.9 and 0.9, respectively). In the GCB group, TP53 mutation frequency was similar between pAkt+ and pAkt- DLBCL (P=0.45). In contrast, TP53 mutations were significantly less frequent in ABC group (5% versus 22%; P= 0.01). Akt activation predicted a poorer survival, but the negative prognostic impact of Akt activation was significant in the ABC (5-year survival rate: 44% in pAkt+ versus 65% in pAkt-; P=0.01; 5-year PFS: 40% in pAkt+ versus 59% in pAkt-; P=0.01), but not GCB subtype (5-year survival rate: 67% in pAkt+ versus 74% in pAkt-, P=0.31; 5-year PFS rate: 61% in pAkt+ versus 69% in pAkt-, P=0.27). The negative impact of Akt activation appeared to be independent of Myc/Bcl-2 expression and TP53 mutation. In multivariate analysis, pAkt expression was an independent predictor of poorer OS (HR=2.72, 95% CI, 1.50-4.98, P=0.001) and PFS (HR=2.16, 95% CI, 1.22-3.82, P=0.008) in patients with ABC wild type-TP53. In addition, AKT1 mRNA expression conferred significantly poor survival in DLBCL. Gene expression profiling revealed a distinct high-risk signature characterized by increased expression of multiple pro-survival genes (6 of 16 up-regulated genes; 40%) and decreased expression of genes encoding tumor suppressors (5 of 20 down-regulated genes; 25%) in pAkt+ ABC DLBCL. Conclusions Akt is activated in DLBCL, is equally distributed in COO subtypes, and has prognostic significance in patients with ABC DLBCL. Given the promising anti-lymphoma activity of Akt inhibitors in clinical trials, these findings may have clinical implications for DLBCL patients. Akt activation may be useful for prognostic stratification and could serve as a biomarker to guide patient selection and predict response to targeted anti-Akt therapy. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document