4.3 Article

Interim positron emission tomography scan associated with international prognostic index and germinal center B cell-like signature as prognostic index in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

期刊

LEUKEMIA & LYMPHOMA
卷 53, 期 1, 页码 34-42

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/10428194.2011.600482

关键词

Gene expression profile; diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; PET scan imaging

向作者/读者索取更多资源

[F-18]-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) imaging is essential to optimize the initial staging and to predict the prognosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). To assess the relationship between the germinal center B cell-like/activated B cell-like (GCB/ABC) classification and PET scan features in DLBCL, 57 cases treated with rituximab and a cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (CHOP)/CHOP-like regimen were analyzed. The expression profile of 18 GCB/ABC related genes and five genes coding for glucose transporters (GLUTs) was determined from frozen tissues using DASL (cDNA-mediated Annealing, Selection, Ligation and extension) technology. According to the gene expression profile (GEP), 30 cases of DLBCL were classified as GCB subtype (2-year progression-free survival [PFS] 76%) and 27 cases as ABC subtype (2-year PFS 51%, p = 0.03). Using a semiquantitative assessment of the decrease in standard uptake value (SUV) at interim PET performed after 3-4 cycles of chemotherapy, we defined fast (n = 36) and slow (n = 9) metabolic responders. In multivariate analysis, GCB/ABC subtype, age-adjusted international prognostic index (aaIPI) and slow/fast metabolic response were independent variables that predicted outcome. A score incorporating aaIPI, fast/slow metabolic response and GCB/ABC classification was used to define two groups with highly significantly distinct outcomes. Our study suggests that the combination of GEP, aaIPI and interim PET more accurately predicts DLBCL prognosis and is therefore suitable for tailoring therapeutic strategies.

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

4.3
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