RESUMO
Background: Gene expression profiling (GEP) studies recognized a prognostic role for tumor microenvironment (TME) in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), but the routinely adoption of prognostic stromal signatures remains limited. Patients and methods: Here, we applied the computational method CIBERSORT to generate a 1028-gene matrix incorporating signatures of 17 immune and stromal cytotypes. Then, we carried out a deconvolution on publicly available GEP data of 482 untreated DLBCLs to reveal associations between clinical outcomes and proportions of putative tumor-infiltrating cell types. Forty-five genes related to peculiar prognostic cytotypes were selected and their expression digitally quantified by NanoString technology on a validation set of 175 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded DLBCLs from two randomized trials. Data from an unsupervised clustering analysis were used to build a model of clustering assignment, whose prognostic value was also assessed on an independent cohort of 40 cases. All tissue samples consisted of pretreatment biopsies of advanced-stage DLBCLs treated by comparable R-CHOP/R-CHOP-like regimens. Results: In silico analysis demonstrated that higher proportion of myofibroblasts (MFs), dendritic cells, and CD4+ T cells correlated with better outcomes and the expression of genes in our panel is associated with a risk of overall and progression-free survival. In a multivariate Cox model, the microenvironment genes retained high prognostic performance independently of the cell-of-origin (COO), and integration of the two prognosticators (COO + TME) improved survival prediction in both validation set and independent cohort. Moreover, the major contribution of MF-related genes to the panel and Gene Set Enrichment Analysis suggested a strong influence of extracellular matrix determinants in DLBCL biology. Conclusions: Our study identified new prognostic categories of DLBCL, providing an easy-to-apply gene panel that powerfully predicts patients' survival. Moreover, owing to its relationship with specific stromal and immune components, the panel may acquire a predictive relevance in clinical trials exploring new drugs with known impact on TME.
Assuntos
Linfoma Difuso de Grandes Células B/mortalidade , Transcriptoma/genética , Microambiente Tumoral/genética , Adulto , Idoso , Algoritmos , Biópsia , Análise por Conglomerados , Estudos de Coortes , Biologia Computacional , Conjuntos de Dados como Assunto , Feminino , Perfilação da Expressão Gênica/métodos , Humanos , Linfoma Difuso de Grandes Células B/genética , Linfoma Difuso de Grandes Células B/patologia , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Inclusão em Parafina , Valor Preditivo dos Testes , Prognóstico , Intervalo Livre de Progressão , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Análise de Sobrevida , Adulto JovemRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The co-existence at diagnosis of follicular lymphoma (FL) and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) components (FL/DLBCL) has been considered a transformed lymphoma and accordingly treated although clinicobiological information on these patients is scarce. The aim of this study was to analyze the initial features and outcome of FL/DLBCL patients in the rituximab era. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients consecutively diagnosed at a single institution with FL/DLBCL (n = 40), as well as those with pure FL (n = 328) or de novo DLBCL (n = 510) as controls. RESULTS: The proportion of the DLBCL component was highly variable (median 50%). In 29 FL/DLBCL cases analyzed, the cell of origin was GCB in 86%, ABC in 10% and unclassifiable in 4%. NOTCH1-2 was mutated in 10% of these cases. The proportion of DLBCL component did not impact on overall survival (OS). Regarding initial characteristics, patients with FL/DLBCL were closer to FL in terms of primary nodal origin, good performance status and advanced stage, whereas the other features were intermediate between FL and DLBCL. FL/DLBCL patients were treated as DLBCL with no further intensification. Complete response and primary refractory rates were 65% and 20%, respectively, with these figures being similar to DLBCL and worse than FL. Progression-free survival and OS were intermediate between FL and DLBCL (5-year OS: 85%, 73% and 63% for FL, FL/DLBCL and DLBCL, respectively). FL/DLBCL histology did not reach independent prognostic value for OS in the multivariate analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The outcome of FL/DLBCL patients is not worse than that of de novo DLBCL. These cases should be treated with immunochemotherapy as DLBCL, but intensification with ASCT may not be necessary. The biological insights of FL/DLBCL warrants further genetic and molecular studies.