Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25052052›Full record

SynthesisClinical lymphoma, myeloma & leukemia2014

Evaluating cell-of-origin subtype methods for predicting diffuse large B-cell lymphoma survival: a meta-analysis of gene expression profiling and immunohistochemistry algorithms.

Jay A Read, Jean L Koff, Loretta J Nastoupil, Jessica N Williams, Jonathon B Cohen, Christopher R Flowers

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical lymphoma, myeloma & leukemia, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 108 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Cell-of-Origin Subtype Predicts Response to Polatuzumab Vedotin in Large B-cell Lymphoma.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Predictive Value of CorrectedWorld journal of nuclear medicine · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jay A ReadEmory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA.
Jean L KoffEmory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA.
Loretta J NastoupilThe University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Jessica N WilliamsEmory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA.
Jonathon B CohenEmory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA.
Christopher R FlowersEmory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA. Electronic address: crflowe@emory.edu.
Emory University · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · US

Funding

Biological Variants Underlying Racial Differences in LymphomaR21CA158686 · NCI · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI FLOWERS, CHRISTOPHER R · 2012 to 2013
$371k
NCI NIH HHS R21 CA158686
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients 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

methodsA 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.

resultsPatients 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.

conclusionsOur 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.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingImmunohistochemistryAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsHumansLymphoma, Large B-Cell, DiffuseNeoplasm StagingPrognosisProportional Hazards ModelsTreatment OutcomeChemoimmunotherapyNon-Hodgkin lymphomaPrognosisRituximabSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID25052052
PMCPMC4253139
OpenAlexW2012084582

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.