4.3 Article

LIM domain only 2 protein expression, LMO2 germline genetic variation, and overall survival in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in the pre-rituximab era

Journal

LEUKEMIA & LYMPHOMA
Volume 53, Issue 6, Pages 1105-1112

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/10428194.2011.638717

Keywords

Diff use large B-cell lymphoma; LMO2; prognosis; single nucleotide polymorphisms

Funding

  1. National Cancer Institute [R01 CA96704, R01 CA129539, P50 CA97274, P01 CA17054, P30 CA014089]
  2. National Cancer Institute (SEER) [N01-PC35139, N01-PC67008, N01-PC67009, N01-PC65064, N01-PC71105]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Both LMO2 (LIM domain only 2) mRNA and protein expression in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) have been associated with superior survival. However, a role for germline genetic variation in LMO2 has not been previously reported. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) for LMO2 was conducted on tumor tissue from diagnostic biopsies, and 20 tag single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from LMO2 were genotyped from germline DNA. LMO2 IHC positivity was associated with superior survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.55; 95% confi dence interval [CI] 0.31 - 0.97). Four LMO2 SNPs (rs10836127, rs941940, rs750781, rs1885524) were associated with survival after adjusting for LMO2 IHC and clinical factors (p < 0.05), and one of these SNPs (rs941940) was also associated with IHC positivity (p = 0.02). Compared to a model with clinical factors only (c-statistic = 0.676), adding the four SNPs (c-statistic = 0.751) or LMO2 IHC (c-statistic = 0.691) increased the predictive ability of the model, while inclusion of all three factors (c-statistic = 0.754) did not meaningfully add predictive ability above a model with clinical factors and the four SNPs. In conclusion, germline genetic variation in LMO2 was associated with DLBCL prognosis and provided slightly stronger predictive ability relative to LMO2 IHC status.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available