4.7 Article

Differential efficacy of bortezomib plus chemotherapy within molecular subtypes of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

期刊

BLOOD
卷 113, 期 24, 页码 6069-6076

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2009-01-199679

关键词

-

资金

  1. Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute Center for Cancer Research
  2. Millennium Pharmaceuticals
  3. Roswell Park Cancer Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gene expression profiling of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) has revealed distinct molecular subtypes that include germinal center B cell-like (GCB) and activated B cell-like (ABC) DLBCL. ABC DLBCL has a worse survival after upfront chemotherapy and is characterized by constitutive activation of the antiapoptotic nuclear factor-kappa B (NF-kappa B) pathway, which can inhibit chemotherapy. We hypothesized that inhibition of NF-kappa B might sensitize ABC but not GCB DLBCL to chemotherapy and improve outcome. As the proteasome inhibitor bortezomib can inhibit NF-kappa B through blocking I kappa B alpha degradation, we investigated bortezomib alone followed by bortezomib and doxorubicin-based chemotherapy in recurrent DLBCL. Tumor tissue was analyzed by gene expression profiling and/or immunohistochemistry to identify molecular DLBCL subtypes. As a control, we showed that relapsed/refractory ABC and GCB DLBCL have equally poor survivals after upfront chemotherapy. Bortezomib alone had no activity in DLBCL, but when combined with chemotherapy, it demonstrated a significantly higher response (83% vs 13%; P < .001) and median overall survival (10.8 vs 3.4 months; P = .003) in ABC compared with GCB DLBCL, respectively. These results suggest bortezomib enhances the activity of chemotherapy in ABC but not GCB DLBCL, and provide a rational therapeutic approach based on genetically distinct DLBCL subtypes. This trial is registered with http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT00057902. (Blood. 2009; 113: 6069-6076)

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

4.7
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