4.6 Article

High-grade B cell lymphoma, unclassifiable, with blastoid features: an unusual morphological subgroup associated frequently with BCL2 and/or MYC gene rearrangements and a poor prognosis

期刊

HISTOPATHOLOGY
卷 61, 期 5, 页码 945-954

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2012.04301.x

关键词

BCL2 rearrangement; blastoid; double-hit; high-grade B cell lymphoma unclassifiable; MYC rearrangement

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: A subset of B cell lymphomas with blastoid features do not fit either as B lymphoblastic lymphoma/leukaemia or blastoid mantle cell lymphoma. Their classification is challenging, even with complete clinicopathological and genetic information. At a haematopathology workshop, experts had suggested the term high-grade B cell lymphoma, unclassifiable, with blastoid features, and recommended further studies. Methods and results: We describe the clinicopathological, immunophenotypic and cytogenetic findings of 24 high-grade B cell lymphomas, unclassifiable, with blastoid features. Fifteen patients presented de novo and seven patients had a history of lymphoma. Twenty patients (83%) presented with nodal disease. All tumours expressed pan-B cell antigens and 17 (89%) of 19 tumours assessed had a germinal centre B cell immunophenotype. Ten (63%) of 16 tumours assessed by fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH) had MYC rearrangement, 13 of 18 (72%) carried IGH-BCL2 and nine of 15 (60%) had both (double-hit lymphoma). The median overall survival was 1.1 years. Using 2008 World Health Organization criteria, 15 cases were classified as B cell lymphoma, unclassifiable, with features intermediate between diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and Burkitt lymphoma, and nine as DLBCL, small centroblastic variant. Conclusion: High-grade B cell lymphomas, unclassifiable, with blastoid features are clinically aggressive with poor survival. Most neoplasms have a germinal centre B cell phenotype. MYC rearrangements and IGH-BCL2 are common, and similar to 60% are double-hit lymphomas.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据