4.6 Article

Elevated pretreatment serum levels of interferon-inducible protein-10 (CXCL10) predict disease relapse and prognosis in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HEMATOLOGY
卷 87, 期 9, 页码 865-869

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/ajh.23259

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [CA92104, CA92153, CA97274, CA25224]
  2. Predolin Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although standard clinical prognostic factors predict outcome in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), predicting the outcome of patients might be further refined using biological factors. We tested whether serum cytokines could provide prognostic information in DLBCL patients. Thirty cytokines were measured in pretreatment samples from newly diagnosed DLBCL patients using a multiplex ELISA. Sixty-nine patients treated with R-CHOP plus epratuzumab were used in an initial cohort and 185 patients treated with standard R-CHOP served as a subsequent validation cohort. In the initial cohort, elevated serum interleukin-10 [IL-10; hazard ratio (HR) = 6.6, P = 0.022], granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor (HR = 10.8, P= 0.027) and IP-10 (interferon-inducible protein-10, CXCL10; HR = 3.32, P = 0.015) were associated with event-free survival (EFS). An identical analysis of the subsequent validation cohort confirmed that elevated serum levels of IP-10 were strongly associated with a poor EFS (HR = 2.42, P = 0.0007); and also identified interleukin-8 (IL-8; HR = 3.40, P = 0.00002) and interleukin-2 receptor (IL-2R, CD25; HR = 2.59, P = 0.0012) as significantly associated with prognosis. The prognostic significance of elevated IP-10 remained significant after adjustment for the International Prognostic Index (EFS - HR 1.99, P = 0.009, overall survival-HR 1.93, P = 0.021). Elevated pretreatment serum IP-10 levels are therefore associated with an increased likelihood of disease relapse and an inferior survival in patients with DLBCL. Am. J. Hematol. (c) 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据