4.3 Article

CD163 Immunohistochemistry Is Superior to CD68 in Predicting Outcome in Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
卷 141, 期 3, 页码 381-387

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1309/AJCP61TLMXLSLJYS

关键词

Classical Hodgkin lymphoma; Tumor-infiltrating macrophages; CD163; CD68; Overall survival; High IPS

资金

  1. Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center Division of Biostatistics (NIH/NCI) [P30 CA91842]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: In recent years, research has increasingly focused on the microenvironment of classical Hodgkin lymphoma (CHL) as a predictor of treatment outcome. The focus of this study was to assess the interobserver reproducibility in interpreting macrophage-associated immunohistochemistry (IHC) for CD68 and CD163 in a retrospective cohort of 88 patients with CHL. Methods: Staining results were correlated with clinical outcome in all patients and those with a high international prognostic score (IFS). Results: The intraclass correlation (ICC) for the five hematopathologists interpreting the IHC was stronger for CD163 (0.70) than for CD68 (0.50). Using a cutoff of 25% mean macrophage reactivity and including all patients, a statistically significant difference in overall survival (OS) was seen only for CD 163 (P = .0006) and not for CD68 (P = .414). Patients with a mean CD 163 reactivity of 25% or more had a median OS of 71 months vs 101 months for patients with less than 25% reactivity. CD163 retained statistical significance in multivariate analysis. In patients with advanced-stage CHL with high IPS, OS was also significantly worse for those with a mean CD163 reactivity of 25% or higher. Conclusions: Our study confirms previous reports of a prognostic role of tumor-infiltrating macrophages in CHL, but only for CD163. Although most of the literature supports an increasing role of macrophage IHC as a predictor of clinical outcome, successful clinical translation will require a standardized method and reporting system.

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