RESUMEN
Background: Aggressive mature T-cell lymphoma (TCL) is a disease that carries a poor prognosis. Methods: We analyzed the expression of 22 tumor cell functional proteins in 16 randomly selected patients with TCL. Immunohistochemistry was performed in paraffin-embedded tumor tissue sections to determine the protein expression statuses in tumor cells. Results: Glucose-regulated protein 94 (GRP94), a protein that serves as a pro-survival component under endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress in the tumor microenvironment, was significantly associated with a shortened survival. Furthermore, significant differences were observed when GRP94 was combined with six other factors. The six factors were (1) programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1); (2) programmed cell death 1 (PD-1); (3) aldo-keto reductase family 1 member C3 (AKR1C3); (4) P53, a tumor suppressor; (5) glucose-regulated protein 78 (GRP78), an ER stress protein; and (6) thymidine phosphorylase (TP). Based on the combination of GRP94 and the six other factors expressed in the tumors, we propose a new prognostic classification system for TCL (TCL Urayasu classification). Group 1 (relatively good prognosis): GRP94-negative (n = 6; median OS, 88 months; p < 0.01); Group 2 (poor prognosis): GRP94-positive, plus expression of two of the six factors mentioned above (n = 5; median OS, 25 months; p > 0.05); and Group 3 (very poor prognosis): GRP94-positive, plus expression of at least three of the six factors mentioned above (n = 5; median OS, 10 months; p < 0.01). Conclusions: Thus, the TCL Urayasu prognostic classification may be a simple, useful, and innovative classification that also explains the mechanism of resistance to treatment for each functional protein. If validated in a larger number of patients, the TCL Urayasu classification will enable a targeted treatment using selected inhibitors acting on the abnormal protein found in each patient.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) are at higher risk of developing secondary malignancies. In this study, we focused on patients with MPNs that complicated lymphoid neoplasms. To analyze the real-world status of lymphoid neoplasm treatment in patients with pre-existing MPNs in Japan, we conducted a multicenter retrospective study. METHODS: Questionnaires were sent to collect the data on patients who were first diagnosed with either polycythemia vera, essential thrombocythemia or myelofibrosis and who later were complicated with lymphoid neoplasms defined as malignant lymphoma, multiple myeloma, or chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small cell lymphoma. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients with MPNs complicated by lymphoid neoplasms were enrolled (polycythemia vera, n = 8; essential thrombocythemia, n = 14; and primary myelofibrosis, n = 2). Among these, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) was the most frequently observed (n = 13, 54.1%). Twelve (92.3%) of the patients with DLBCL received conventional chemotherapy. Among these 12 patients, regarding cytoreductive therapy for MPNs, 8 patients stopped treatment, one continued treatment, and two received a reduced dose. Consequently, most patients were able to receive conventional chemotherapy for DLBCL with a slightly higher dose of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support than usual without worse outcomes. All 3 patients with multiple myeloma received a standard dose of chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Our data indicate that if aggressive lymphoid neoplasms develop during the course of treatment in patients with MPNs, it is acceptable to prioritize chemotherapy for lymphoma.