4.7 Article

Identification of a 3-gene model as a powerful diagnostic tool for the recognition of ALK-negative anaplastic large-cell lymphoma

Journal

BLOOD
Volume 120, Issue 6, Pages 1274-1281

Publisher

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2012-01-405555

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro [IG-8675, 10007, IG-4569]
  2. Regione Piemonte
  3. Compagnia di San Paolo, Torino (Progetto Oncologia)
  4. Fondazione Italiana Ricerca sul Cancro
  5. Oncosuisse [KLS-02403-02-2009]
  6. Fondazione per la Ricerca e la Cura sui Linfomi (Lugano, Switzerland)
  7. Nelia et Amadeo Barletta Foundation (Lausanne, Switzerland)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Anaplastic large-cell lymphomas (ALCLs) are a group of clinically and biologically heterogeneous diseases including the ALK(+) and ALK(-) systemic forms. Whereas ALK(+) ALCLs are molecularly characterized and can be readily diagnosed, specific immunophenotypic or genetic features to define ALK(-) ALCL are missing, and their distinction from other T-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas (T-NHLs) remains controversial. In the present study, we undertook a transcriptional profiling meta-analysis of 309 cases, including ALCL and other primary T-NHL samples. Pathway discovery and prediction analyses defined a minimum set of genes capable of recognizing ALK(-) ALCL. Application of quantitative RT-PCR in independent datasets from cryopreserved and formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded samples validated a 3-gene model (TNFRSF8, BATF3, and TMOD1) able to successfully separate ALK(-) ALCL from peripheral T-cell lymphoma not otherwise specified, with overall accuracy near 97%. In conclusion, our data justify the possibility of translating quantitative RT-PCR protocols to routine clinical settings as a new approach to objectively dissect T-NHL and to select more appropriate therapeutic protocols. (Blood. 2012;120(6):1274-1281)

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available