4.8 Article

Molecular diagnosis of Burkitt's lymphoma

Journal

NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
Volume 354, Issue 23, Pages 2431-2442

Publisher

MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa055759

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Intramural NIH HHS Funding Source: Medline
  2. NCI NIH HHS [UO1-CA84967] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The distinction between Burkitt's lymphoma and diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma is crucial because these two types of lymphoma require different treatments. We examined whether gene-expression profiling could reliably distinguish Burkitt's lymphoma from diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma. Methods: Tumor-biopsy specimens from 303 patients with aggressive lymphomas were profiled for gene expression and were also classified according to morphology, immunohistochemistry, and detection of the t(8;14) c-myc translocation. Results: A classifier based on gene expression correctly identified all 25 pathologically verified cases of classic Burkitt's lymphoma. Burkitt's lymphoma was readily distinguished from diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma by the high level of expression of c-myc target genes, the expression of a subgroup of germinal-center B-cell genes, and the low level of expression of major-histocompatibility-complex class I genes and nuclear factor-kappa B target genes. Eight specimens with a pathological diagnosis of diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma had the typical gene-expression profile of Burkitt's lymphoma, suggesting they represent cases of Burkitt's lymphoma that are difficult to diagnose by current methods. Among 28 of the patients with a molecular diagnosis of Burkitt's lymphoma, the overall survival was superior among those who had received intensive chemotherapy regimens instead of lower-dose regimens. Conclusions: Gene-expression profiling is an accurate, quantitative method for distinguishing Burkitt's lymphoma from 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

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available