4.6 Article

Deregulation of COMMD1 Is Associated with Poor Prognosis in Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 9, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0091031

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Finnish Academy of Sciences
  2. Finnish Cancer Societies
  3. Sigrid Juselius Foundation
  4. University of Helsinki
  5. Helsinki Biomedical Graduate Program
  6. Helsinki University Central Hospital
  7. Amgen
  8. Roche Norway

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Despite improved survival for the patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), the prognosis after relapse is poor. The aim was to identify molecular events that contribute to relapse and treatment resistance in DLBCL. Methods: We analysed 51 prospectively collected pretreatment tumour samples from clinically high risk patients treated in a Nordic phase II study with dose-dense chemoimmunotherapy and central nervous system prophylaxis with high resolution array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) and gene expression microarrays. Major finding was validated at the protein level immunohistochemically in a trial specific tissue microarray series of 70, and in an independent validation series of 146 patients. Results: We identified 31 genes whose expression changes were strongly associated with copy number aberrations. In addition, gains of chromosomes 2p15 and 18q12.2 were associated with unfavourable survival. The 2p15 aberration harboured COMMD1 gene, whose expression had a significant adverse prognostic impact on survival. Immunohistochemical analysis of COMMD1 expression in two series confirmed the association of COMMD1 expression with poor prognosis. Conclusion: COMMD1 is a potential novel prognostic factor in DLBCLs. The results highlight the value of integrated comprehensive analysis to identify prognostic markers and genetic driver events not previously implicated in DLBCL.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available