| Literature DB >> 31403034 |
Yangying Zhou1, Zhijie Xu2, Wei Lin2, Yumei Duan2, Can Lu2, Wei Liu1, Weiping Su3, Yuanliang Yan4, Huan Liu1, Li Liu1, Meizuo Zhong1, Jianhua Zhou2, Hong Zhu1.
Abstract
Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-positive diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (EBV+ DLBCL) is a rare type of lymphoma with a high incidence in elderly patients, poor drug response, and unfavorable prognosis. Despite advances in genomic profiling and precision medicine in DLBCL, EBV+ DLBCL remain poorly characterized and understood. We include 236 DLBCL patients for EBV-encoded mRNA (EBER) in situ hybridization detection and analyzed 9 EBV+ and 6 EBV negative cases by next-generation sequencing (NGS). We then performed fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and immunohistochemistry (IHC) to analyze chromosome rearrangements and gene expressions in 22 EBV+ and 30 EBV negative cases. The EBER results showed a 9.3% (22/236) positive rate. The NGS results revealed recurrent alterations in MYC and RHOA, components of apoptosis and NF-κB pathways. The most frequently mutated genes in EBV+ DLBCL were MYC (3/9; 33.3%), RHOA (3/9; 33.3%), PIM1 (2/9; 22.2%), MEF2B (2/9; 22.2%), MYD88 (2/9; 22.2%), and CD79B (2/9; 22.2%) compared with KMT2D (4/6; 66.7%), CREBBP (3/6; 50.0%), PIM1 (2/6; 33.3%), TNFAIP3 (2/6; 33.3%), and BCL2 (2/6; 33.3%) in EBV-negative DLBCL. MYC and KMT2D alterations stood out the most differently mutated genes between the two groups. FISH detection displayed a lower rearrangement rate in EBV+ cohort. Furthermore, KMT2D expression was highly expressed and associated with poor survival in both cohorts. MYC was only overexpressed and related to an inferior prognosis in the EBV+ DLBCL cohort. In summary, we depicted a distinct mutation profile for EBV+ and EBV-negative DLBCL and validated the differential expression of KMT2D and MYC with potential prognostic influence, thereby providing new perspectives into the pathogenesis and precision medicine of DLBCL.Entities:
Keywords: EBV-positive diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (EBV+ DLBCL); KMT2D; MYC; fluorescence in situ hybridizations; immunohistochemistry; next-generation sequencing
Year: 2019 PMID: 31403034 PMCID: PMC6669985 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2019.00683
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Clinicopathological features of EBV+/EBV– DLBCL patients.
| Gender | 0.947 | ||
| Female | 9(40.9%) | 12(40.0%) | |
| Male | 13(59.1%) | 18(60.0%) | |
| Age | |||
| <60 | 8(36.4%) | 20(66.7%) | |
| ≥60 | 14(63.6%) | 10(33.3%) | |
| LDH | 0.093 | ||
| Normal | 12(54.5%) | 23(76.7%) | |
| Elevated | 10(45.5%) | 7(23.3%) | |
| B symptoms | 0.961 | ||
| Absent | 16(72.7%) | 22(73.3%) | |
| Present | 6(27.3%) | 8(26.7%) | |
| Subtype | 0.539 | ||
| ABC | 16(72.7%) | 24(80.0%) | |
| GCB | 6(27.3%) | 6(20.0%) | |
| Ann Arbor Stage | |||
| I–II | 7(31.8%) | 18(60.0%) | |
| III–IV | 15(68.2%) | 12(40.0%) | |
| Location | 0.523 | ||
| Nodal | 12(54.5%) | 19(63.3%) | |
| Extranodal | 10(45.5%) | 11(36.7%) | |
| Spleen | 2(9.1%) | 3(10%) | |
| Soft tissue | 2(9.1%) | 1(3.3%) | |
| Gastric | 2(9.1%) | 3(10%) | |
| Colon | 2(9.1%) | 2(6.7%) | |
| Tonsil | 2(9.1%) | 1(3.3%) | |
| Nasal Cavity | 0 | 1(3.3%) | |
| IPI score | 0.984 | ||
| Low-risk group | 6(27.3%) | 8(26.7%) | |
| Median-risk group | 9(40.9%) | 13(43.3%) | |
| High-risk group | 7(31.8%) | 9(30.0%) | |
| Survival Time | 0.242 | ||
| Median | 23 | 29 | |
| Range | 4–36 | 4–51 |
ABC, activated B-cell-like type; GCB, germinal center B-cell-type; CNS, central nervous system; IPI, International Prognostic Index. The bold values showed P < 0.05.
Figure 1Mutation profile in EBV+ and EBV- negative DLBCL groups. (A) The distribution and frequency of genetic alterations in nine EBV+ DLBCL and six EBV- negative DLBCL. The types of mutation and different clinical factors are labeled in different colors. (B) Gene mutation with potential targeted therapy. The frequent mutation genes in EBV+ and EBV- negative DLBCL cohorts and the potential targets highlighted by indicating the possible targeted therapy. (C) Pie chart showing the percentages of different types of somatic mutation in EBV+ DLBCL. (D) Mutation pathway distribution among EBV+ DLBCL specimens. Different color represents diverse mutation pathways and percentages.
Figure 2Gene ontology (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) analysis of EBV+ DLBCL. (A) Bioinformatic analysis for the top 20 GO enrichment in EBV+ DLBCL. (B) Bioinformatic analysis for the top 15 KEGG pathway enrichment in EBV+ DLBCL. (The P-value denoted the significance of GO terms enrichment in the genes and was adjusted by using Benjamini and Hochberg method to avoid false positives, and P < 0.05 was considered as significantly enriched).
Figure 3FISH and IHC staining of EBV+ and EBV negative DLBCL specimens. Example of FISH performed on EBV+ and EBV negative DLBCL (A), FISH assay reveals rearrangement at the c-MYC (a), BCL2 (b) and BCL6 (c) loci using the dual-color break-apart rearrangement probes, break-apart signals in DLBCL nuclei are highlighted exemplarily by white arrows; increased copies of BCL6 by FISH (d). Immunohistochemistry staining for KMT2D and MYC in EBV+ and EBV negative DLBCL specimens (B), (a) Low expression of KMT2D (IHC, ×400); (b) High expression of KMT2D (IHC, ×400); (c) Low expression of MYC (IHC, ×400); (d) High expression of MYC (IHC, ×400). (C) Bar chart showing the percentages of KMT2D expression in EBV+ and EBV- negative DLBCL cohorts. (D) Bar chart showing the percentages of MYC expression in EBV+ and EBV negative DLBCL cohorts.
The expression of KMT2D and MYC in EBV+/EBV– DLBCL patients.
| EBV+ DLBCL | 22 | 8 | 14 | 63.63% | 0.629 | 12 | 10 | 45.45% | |
| EBV– DLBCL | 30 | 9 | 21 | 70.00% | 24 | 6 | 20.00% | ||
The bold values showed P < 0.05.
Correlation of KMT2D and MYC expression with clinicopathological features.
| Gender | 0.806 | 0.745 | 0.429 | 0.709 | ||||||||
| Female | 3 | 6 | 4 | 8 | 4 | 5 | 10 | 2 | ||||
| Male | 5 | 8 | 5 | 13 | 8 | 5 | 14 | 4 | ||||
| Age | 0.315 | 0.675 | 0.571 | 0.372 | ||||||||
| <60 | 4 | 4 | 7 | 13 | 5 | 3 | 17 | 3 | ||||
| ≥60 | 4 | 10 | 2 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 3 | ||||
| LDH | 0.746 | 0.393 | 0.639 | 0.29 | ||||||||
| Normal | 4 | 8 | 8 | 15 | 6 | 6 | 17 | 6 | ||||
| Elevated | 4 | 6 | 1 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 0 | ||||
| B symptoms | 0.315 | 0.067 | 0.056 | 0.3 | ||||||||
| Absent | 7 | 9 | 9 | 13 | 11 | 5 | 19 | 3 | ||||
| Present | 1 | 5 | 0 | 8 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 3 | ||||
| Subtype | 0.624 | 0.329 | 0.162 | 0.302 | ||||||||
| ABC | 5 | 11 | 6 | 18 | 7 | 9 | 18 | 6 | ||||
| GCB | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 6 | 0 | ||||
| Ann Arbor Stage | 0.249 | 0.074 | ||||||||||
| I–II | 6 | 1 | 7 | 11 | 6 | 1 | 17 | 1 | ||||
| III–IV | 2 | 13 | 2 | 10 | 6 | 9 | 7 | 5 | ||||
| IPI score | 0.087 | |||||||||||
| Low-risk group | 5 | 1 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 7 | 1 | ||||
| Median-risk group | 2 | 7 | 2 | 11 | 5 | 4 | 12 | 1 | ||||
| High-risk group | 1 | 6 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 6 | 5 | 4 | ||||
P was calculated by χ.
Association of mOS and clinicopathological features.
| Gender | 0.612 | 0.96 | ||
| Female | 21 | 28 | ||
| Male | 24 | 29 | ||
| Age | 0.237 | |||
| <60 | 31 | 35 | ||
| ≥60 | 17 | 29 | ||
| LDH | 0.373 | 0.843 | ||
| Normal | 25 | 29 | ||
| Elevated | 18 | 28 | ||
| B symptoms | 0.21 | 0.33 | ||
| Absent | 24 | 30 | ||
| Present | 17 | 24 | ||
| Subtype | 0.46 | 0.056 | ||
| ABC | 21 | 26 | ||
| GCB | 22 | 35 | ||
| Ann Arbor Stage | 0.057 | 0.067 | ||
| I–II | 31 | 34 | ||
| III–IV | 18 | 23 | ||
| IPI score | ||||
| Low-risk group | 31 | 38 | ||
| Median-risk group | 21 | 28 | ||
| High-risk group | 13 | 17 | ||
| KMT2D | ||||
| Low expression | 29 | 41 | ||
| High expression | 17 | 23 | ||
| MYC | 0.073 | |||
| Low expression | 29 | 31 | ||
| High expression | 16 | 20 | ||
P was calculated by χ.