BACKGROUND: Patients with DLBCL exhibit widely divergent outcomes despite harboring histologically identical tumors. Currently, GEP and IHC algorithms assign patients to 1 of 2 main subtypes: germinal center B cell-like (GCB), or activated B cell-like (ABC), the latter of which historically carries a less favorable prognosis. However, it remains controversial as to whether these prognostic groupings remain valid in the era of rituximab therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature review identified 24 articles from which meta-analyses were conducted, comparing survival outcomes for patients assigned to either GCB or ABC/non-GCB subtype using GEP and/or Hans, Choi, or Muris IHC algorithms. RESULTS: Patients designated as GCB DLBCL using GEP fared significantly better in terms of overall survival than those with ABC DLBCL (hazard ratio, 1.85; P < .0001). In contrast, the Hans and Choi algorithms failed to identify significant differences in overall survival (P = .07 and P = .76, respectively) between GCB and non-GCB groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our study illustrates a lack of evidence supporting the use of the Hans and Choi algorithms for stratifying patients into distinct prognostic groups. Rather, GEP remains the preferred method for predicting the course of a patient's disease and informing decisions regarding treatment options.
BACKGROUND:Patients with DLBCL exhibit widely divergent outcomes despite harboring histologically identical tumors. Currently, GEP and IHC algorithms assign patients to 1 of 2 main subtypes: germinal center B cell-like (GCB), or activated B cell-like (ABC), the latter of which historically carries a less favorable prognosis. However, it remains controversial as to whether these prognostic groupings remain valid in the era of rituximab therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature review identified 24 articles from which meta-analyses were conducted, comparing survival outcomes for patients assigned to either GCB or ABC/non-GCB subtype using GEP and/or Hans, Choi, or Muris IHC algorithms. RESULTS:Patients designated as GCB DLBCL using GEP fared significantly better in terms of overall survival than those with ABC DLBCL (hazard ratio, 1.85; P < .0001). In contrast, the Hans and Choi algorithms failed to identify significant differences in overall survival (P = .07 and P = .76, respectively) between GCB and non-GCB groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our study illustrates a lack of evidence supporting the use of the Hans and Choi algorithms for stratifying patients into distinct prognostic groups. Rather, GEP remains the preferred method for predicting the course of a patient's disease and informing decisions regarding treatment options.
Authors: Thomas M Habermann; Edie A Weller; Vicki A Morrison; Randy D Gascoyne; Peter A Cassileth; Jeffrey B Cohn; Shaker R Dakhil; Bruce Woda; Richard I Fisher; Bruce A Peterson; Sandra J Horning Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-06-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ivana Ilić; Zdravko Mitrović; Igor Aurer; Sandra Bašić-Kinda; Ivo Radman; Radmila Ajduković; Boris Labar; Snježana Dotlić; Marin Nola Journal: Int J Hematol Date: 2009-06-03 Impact factor: 2.490
Authors: J-P Jais; C Haioun; T J Molina; D S Rickman; A de Reynies; F Berger; C Gisselbrecht; J Brière; F Reyes; P Gaulard; P Feugier; E Labouyrie; H Tilly; C Bastard; B Coiffier; G Salles; K Leroy Journal: Leukemia Date: 2008-07-10 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: J J F Muris; C J L M Meijer; W Vos; J H J M van Krieken; N M Jiwa; G J Ossenkoppele; J J Oudejans Journal: J Pathol Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 7.996
Authors: William W L Choi; Dennis D Weisenburger; Timothy C Greiner; Miguel A Piris; Alison H Banham; Jan Delabie; Rita M Braziel; Huimin Geng; Javeed Iqbal; Georg Lenz; Julie M Vose; Christine P Hans; Kai Fu; Lynette M Smith; Min Li; Zhongfeng Liu; Randy D Gascoyne; Andreas Rosenwald; German Ott; Lisa M Rimsza; Elias Campo; Elaine S Jaffe; David L Jaye; Louis M Staudt; Wing C Chan Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-08-25 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Wyndham H Wilson; Kieron Dunleavy; Stefania Pittaluga; Upendra Hegde; Nicole Grant; Seth M Steinberg; Mark Raffeld; Martin Gutierrez; Bruce A Chabner; Louis Staudt; Elaine S Jaffe; John E Janik Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-03-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: G Lenz; G Wright; S S Dave; W Xiao; J Powell; H Zhao; W Xu; B Tan; N Goldschmidt; J Iqbal; J Vose; M Bast; K Fu; D D Weisenburger; T C Greiner; J O Armitage; A Kyle; L May; R D Gascoyne; J M Connors; G Troen; H Holte; S Kvaloy; D Dierickx; G Verhoef; J Delabie; E B Smeland; P Jares; A Martinez; A Lopez-Guillermo; E Montserrat; E Campo; R M Braziel; T P Miller; L M Rimsza; J R Cook; B Pohlman; J Sweetenham; R R Tubbs; R I Fisher; E Hartmann; A Rosenwald; G Ott; H-K Muller-Hermelink; D Wrench; T A Lister; E S Jaffe; W H Wilson; W C Chan; L M Staudt Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-11-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Allison Barraclough; Musa Alzahrani; Marianne Schmidt Ettrup; Mark Bishton; Chris van Vliet; Pedro Farinha; Clare Gould; Simone Birch; Laurie H Sehn; Vishakha Sovani; Mitchell Steven Ward; Bradley Augustson; Jorne Biccler; Joseph M Connors; David W Scott; Maher K Gandhi; Kerry J Savage; Tarec El-Galaly; Diego Villa; Chan Yoon Cheah Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2019-07-09
Authors: Jacob Jordan; Jordan S Goldstein; David L Jaye; Metin Gurcan; Christopher R Flowers; Lee A D Cooper Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2018-02-09
Authors: R Andrew Harkins; Andres Chang; Sharvil P Patel; Michelle J Lee; Jordan S Goldstein; Selin Merdan; Christopher R Flowers; Jean L Koff Journal: Expert Rev Hematol Date: 2019-09-12 Impact factor: 2.929