4.5 Article

Prognostic significance of Epstein-Barr virus DNA detection in pretreatment serum in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

Journal

CANCER SCIENCE
Volume 106, Issue 11, Pages 1576-1581

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/cas.12812

Keywords

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; EBER; EBV DNA load; Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

It is still a matter of debate whether detection of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) DNA in pretreatment serum has clinical implications for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. For this study, we measured EBV DNA load in pretreatment serum from 127 diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients without any underlying immunodeficiency to evaluate its effects on clinical manifestations and prognosis. Anthracycline-based chemotherapy in combination with rituximab was given as initial therapy for 119 patients (94%). Epstein-Barr virus DNA was detected in 15 patients (12%), who were older (P = 0.005) and tended to be at a more advanced disease stage (P = 0.053). They showed significantly worse progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) than other patients (P < 0.001 each). This effect remained significant (P = 0.004 and P = 0.027, respectively) after adjustment for age, lactate dehydrogenase, performance status, stage, and extranodal sites. The status of EBV-encoded small RNA in situ hybridization was known for 123 patients; 6 of 8 positive patients (75%) and 9 of 115 negative patients (8%) had detectable EBV DNA in pretreatment serum. While patients positive for EBV-encoded small RNA had significantly worse PFS and OS than negative patients (P = 0.001 and P = 0.029, respectively), EBV DNA detection in pretreatment serum was associated with poorer PFS and OS even for the 115 patients negative for EBV-encoded small RNA (P < 0.001 each). These findings suggest that EBV DNA detection in pretreatment serum may have an adverse prognostic impact for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available