4.8 Article

Expression of cancer testis antigen CT45 in classical Hodgkin lymphoma and other B-cell lymphomas

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0915050107

关键词

cancer vaccine target; immunotherapy; tumor immunology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have shown previously that cancer/testis (CT) antigen, CT45, is expressed in various epithelial cancers at a frequency of <5% to similar to 35%. In this study, the protein expression of CT45 was examined in non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphomas and classical Hodgkin lymphoma by immunohistochemical analysis. Serological response to CT45 was also evaluated by ELISA using CT45 recombinant protein and sera from patients with Hodgkin lymphoma. None of the 80 low-grade B-cell lymphomas, including chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, and mantle cell lymphoma, expressed CT45. In comparison, CT45 was expressed in 28 of 126 (22%) diffuse large B-cell lymphomas (DLBCL). A remarkably high percentage (42/72, 58%) of classical Hodgkin lymphoma contained CT45-positive Reed-Sternberg cells. Nodular sclerosis and mixed-cellularity subtypes had similar frequency of CT45 expression, but most EBV-positive cases were CT45 negative. Gray-zone lymphoma (cases with features of both DLBCL and classical Hodgkin lymphoma) also showed frequent (64%) CT45 expression. Evaluation of reactive lymphoid tissues showed scattered CT45-positive lymphocytes in a single case of florid follicular hyperplasia, raising the possibility that this case was an evolving malignancy. Despite frequent CT45 expression, only 1 of 67 Hodgkin lymphoma patients had detectable anti-CT45 antibodies in the serum, suggesting that the immune response to CT45 may be suppressed. In conclusion, classical Hodgkin lymphomahas the highest frequency of CT45 expression among all malignancies tested to date, the frequency of CT45 expression in DLBCL is similar to that seen in epithelial cancers, and low-grade non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphomas do not express CT45.

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

4.8
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