4.7 Article

Germinal center phenotype and bcl-2 expression combined with the International Prognostic Index improves patient risk stratification in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

期刊

BLOOD
卷 99, 期 4, 页码 1136-1143

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood.V99.4.1136

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The International Prognostic Index (IPI) Identifies poor- and good-risk patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL); however, the majority of patients have an intermediate IPI, with an uncertain prognosis. To determine whether cellular factors can be combined with the IPI to more accurately predict outcome, we have analyzed 177 presentation nodal DLBCLs for the expression of bcl-2 and a germinal center (GC) phenotype (defined by expression of bcl-6 and CD10). P53 gene band shifts were detected using single-stranded conformational polymorphism polymerase chain reaction analysis of exons 5-9 and were correlated with protein expression. In a Cox regression analysis, IPI (R = 0.22, P <.0001) and bcl-2 (R = 0.14, P = .0001) were independent poor prognostic factors and a GC phenotype predicted a favorable outcome (R = -0.025, P = .02). Neither p53 expression nor band shifts had a significant effect on survival. Using the IPI alone, 8% of patients were Identified as high risk. Expression of bcl-2 in the intermediate IPI group identified a further 28% of patients with an overall survival comparable to the high IPI group. In the intermediate IPI, bcl-2(-) group, the presence of a GC phenotype Improved overall survival to levels approaching the IPI low group. Following this analysis only 15% of patients failed to be assigned to a favorable- or poor-risk group. Sequential addition of bcl-2 expression and GC phenotype Into the IPI significantly improves risk stratification In DLBCL. For the 36% of high-risk patients with a 2-year overall survival of 19%, alternative treatment strategies should be considered In future trials. (C) 2002 by The American Society of Hematology.

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

4.7
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