4.4 Article

Fc-Gamma-Receptor IIIa Polymorphism and Gene Expression Profile Do Not Predict the Prognosis in Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma Treated with R-CHOP Protocol

期刊

PATHOLOGY & ONCOLOGY RESEARCH
卷 18, 期 1, 页码 43-48

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12253-011-9414-7

关键词

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; Rituximab; Fc-gamma-receptor IIIa polymorphism; Gene expression profile; Treatment response; Survival

资金

  1. MECENATURA of the University of Debrecen

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The addition of rituximab to conventional chemotherapy has significantly improved the treatment outcome in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. However, differences in treatment response and survival data can be observed independently from the International Prognostic Index scores. The current study evaluated the impact of Fc-gamma-receptor IIIa polymorphism and gene expression profile on the response of DLBCL patients to R-CHOP therapy as well as on their survival results. Fifty-one patients were involved, thirty-two females, nineteen males, their median age was 53.1 years. The FCGR3A polymorphism at the 158. amino acid position determined with PCR method showed the following results: VV: 12 cases (23.5%), VF: 29 cases (56.8%) and FF: 10 cases (19.6%), respectively. There was no significant difference between the treatment responses of the three groups. The event-free survival data were less favorable in the F-allele carriers than in V/V homozygous patients, but without any significancy, and the overall survival curves were almost the same. As for the gene expression profile, 20 patients' biopsy specimens showed germinal center and 31 showed non-germinal center characteristics. Treatment results did not differ from each other in the two groups. Both the event-free and the overall survival data were more favorable in the GC group, however the differences were not significant. Our results contest the predictive value of Fc-gamma-receptor IIIa polymorphism and gene expression profile in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

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

4.4
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