Abstract
Numerous studies have investigated the prognostic values of MYC and/or BCL2 protein overexpression in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). However, the results still demonstrate discrepancies among different studies. We aimed to do a systematic review and meta-analysis on the relationships between overexpression MYC and/or BCL2 and DLBCLs treated with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP). This study followed the guidelines of PRISMA and Cochrane handbook. The hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) were pooled to estimate the main effect size. Twenty studies recruited a total of 5576 patients were available for this meta-analysis. The results showed that MYC (HR = 1.96, 95%CI (confidence interval) = 1.69–2.27)without heterogeneity(I2 = 17.2%, P = 0.280), BCL2 (HR = 1.65, 95%CI = 1.43–1.89, I2 = 20.7%, P = 0.234) protein overexpression, and co-overexpression (HR = 2.58, 95%CI = 2.19–3.04, I2 = 17.2%, P = 0.275) had a poor prognosis in R-CHOP treated DLBCL patients, respectively. The current analysis indicated that MYC and/or BCL2 protein overexpression, and particularly co-overexpression was related to short overall survival in R-CHOP treated DLBCL patients, showing that application of the two new biomarkers can help to better stratify DLBCL patients and guide targeted treatment.
Introduction
Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common subtype of aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and a highly heterogeneous malignancy of B cells both biologically and clinically1. The International Prognostic Index (IPI) system has been widely used to predict prognosis in patients with high grade NHL2. However, there still remain obvious distinctions in clinical outcomes within the high risk subgroup, suggesting other potential contributing factors that IPI couldn’t explain3. Meanwhile, DLBCL is remediable in more than 60% patients when treated with standard treatment, known as R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone)4, so it is important to seek out optimal biomarkers which could identify the rest of patients who failed to be cured with R-CHOP treatment.
Diverse genetics and proteomics studies have been explored in DLBCL5,6. Earlier studies reported the poor prognosis of MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements in DLBCL, known as double-hit lymphoma (DHL), or triple hit lymphoma (THL) by using fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) cytogenetic techniques. In 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO) revision of the lymphoma classification defined this as a new category of high-grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBL)7. Additionally, this new type of HGBL occurred in less than 10% DLBCL patients. In comparison, the co-overexpression of MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6 proteins, so-called dual expressors (DE-DLBCL) or triple expressors(TE-DLBCL) detected by Immunohistochemistry(IHC) is much more common, occurring in 20–30% DLBCL patients. This higher percentage scope may make detailed subdivisions of patients. Moreover, FISH fails to detect gene deregulation caused by further mechanisms other than translocation level, but protein is a more effective molecule that can make up for the above deficiency and control physiological function directly. Over the last five years, the assessment of overexpression MYC and BCL2/BCL6 has emerged as frequently-used biomarkers for prognosis in DLBCL patients. However, there are many controversial issues about diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis in DE-DLBCL patients, including acknowledged cut-off values for each protein overexpression, uniform therapy regimens, final outcomes, and so on. Therefore, the poor prognostic implications of overexpression MYC and/or BCL2 still remain undetermined. Furthermore, there are far less data available for BCL6 protein expression, part of the reason is its rarity. So the systematic review and meta-analysis aims to illuminate the prognostic values of MYC and/or BCL2 overexpression in R-CHOP-treated DLBCL patients.
Materials and Methods
This study followed the guidelines of the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology group (MOOSE)8 and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA)9.
Search strategy and selection criteria
We performed a literature search in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library to identify all primary research studies which evaluate the associations between MYC and/or BCL2 overexpression and prognosis in DLBCLs. The electronic search was performed combining Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and text words, using the following terms: “MYC”, “BCL2”, “Lymphoma, Large B-Cell, Diffuse/DLBCL” and “prognosis/prognostic/survival”. The language was restricted to English. All the studies published before 24 October 2017 were included. We also retrieved additional articles through references included in the eligible studies and relevant reviews.
The following included criteria were established: (1) all included patients should be pathologically confirmed in diagnosis of DLBCL according to the World Health Organization classification of tumors of the hematopoietic and lymphoid tissues; (2) sufficient information about MYC and/or BCL2 protein overexpression levels should be provided; (3) the association between MYC and/or BCL2 protein overexpression and DLBCL prognosis should be reported. Articles were excluded if they (1) were case reports, letters, commentaries, meeting records or review articles; (2) included patients with human immunodeficiency virus infection(HIV) infection, epstein-barr virus(EBV) infection or primary central nervous system disease; (3) lacked sufficient data for estimating hazard ratios (HRs) and their 95%CIs(confidence intervals). Additionally, if more than one study by the same author using the same case series were published, either the study with the larger sample size or the most recently published was selected.
Quality assessment
Two researchers (Lu Li and Ximei Que) independently assessed the study quality according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort and case-control studies10. Any disagreements were resolved by rigorous discussions. The NOS criteria included the following three aspects: (1) Selection: 0–4; (2) Comparability: 0–2; (3) Outcome/Exposure: 0–3. A study can be awarded a maximum of one score for each numbered item within the Selection and Exposure categories. A maximum of two scores can be given for Comparability. NOS scores range from 0 to 9 with no less than 6 indicates good quality.
Data extraction
The extracted contents included the first author’s name, publication year, studying country, cut-off values of MYC and/or BCL2 protein expression, number of patients, sampling type, detection method, follow-up duration and HRs with 95% CIs for OS. If the HR was not reported directly, we can extract data from the survival curve published in the article and then estimated the HRs by using Engauge Digitizer version 4.1. All the calculations mentioned above were based on the methods introduced by Parmar11 and Tierney12. If necessary, we also contacted the corresponding author of included articles in order to obtain additional information.
Statistical analysis
We pooled HRs of the studies by using Stata12.0 (version 12.0, Stata Corporation Station, TX). An observed HR > 1 indicated a worse prognosis for the group with relevant protein overexpression, whereas HR < 1 implied a better prognosis for the group with relevant protein overexpression. Besides, if the 95%CI of HR included the null value, that is 1, then this HR was not statistically significant. Heterogeneity among studies was evaluated using the Cochrane’s Q test and I2 index. A P < 0.1 for the Q-test or I2 > 50% indicated heterogeneity among the studies. The random-effects model was chosen to estimate the combined HR if heterogeneity was significant (P < 0.1, I2 > 50%). Otherwise, the fixed-effects model was used (P > 0.1, I2 < 50%). Subgroup analysis was implemented to explore sources of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis which used the leave-one-out method was performed to assess the outcome stability by evaluating the influence of singular study. The publication bias of included studies was assessed by visual inspection of funnel plots and two formal statistical tests for asymmetry of the funnel plots, including Begg’s rank correlation test13 and Egger’s linear regression test14. A symmetric graphic revealed unlikely publication bias.
Results
Characteristics of the included studies
According to the search strategy, a total of 1004 potentially relevant articles were identified in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library. After a browse of the titles and abstracts and then assessment of the full-text, twenty studies which included a total of 5576 enrolled patients were available for this meta-analysis. Figure 1 shows the selection process of these studies.
The involved studies were all published between 2008 and 2017. Most of the studies used the method of IHC to measure the gene expression, while only one study used the method of Array Plate quantitative nuclease protection assay (qNPA) technology. The type of specimen used in eighteen studies was formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue (FFPE), only two studies used tissues without further explanation. The HRs were extracted from fifteen studies which reported them directly and extrapolated from the survival curves in the other five studies which did not report HRs. These studies were retrospective excepted for a prospective one15, and all recorded the effect of MYC and/or BCL2 protein overexpression on OS. The details and methodological qualities of twenty studies are shown in Table 1.
Table 1.
Study(year) | Region | Gene | Number of patients | Sample type | Cut-off value | Detection method | Median follow-up monthes (minimum,maximum) | HR(95%CL) | Outcome | Quality | Hazard ratio |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Zhou(2014)47 | China | MYC | 60 | FFPE | 50% | IHC | 24(4,62) | 11.862(1.462,96.218) | OS | 7 | R |
Zijun(2015)48 | Western | BCL2 | 828 | FFPE | 70% | IHC | NR | 2.04(1.45,2.87) | OS | 7 | R |
Lisa(2008)49 | America | MYC | 116 | FFPE | 50% | qNPA | NR | 1.64(1.16,2.31) | OS | 7 | R |
America | BCL2 | 116 | FFPE | 50% | qNPA | NR | 1.11(0.77,1.60) | OS | 7 | R | |
Iqbal(2011)50 | Mix | BCL2 | 221 | TISSUE | 50% | IHC | NR | 2.0(1.0,4.0) | OS | 7 | R |
Johnson(2012)(T)18 | Mix | MYCBCL2 | 164 | FFPE | 40%50% | IHC | 42(6.24,135.6) | 4.27(2.18,8.37) | OS | 8 | SC |
(V) | British | MYCBCL2 | 140 | FFPE | 40%50% | IHC | 56.4(12.0,96.0) | 1.47(0.75,2.87) | OS | 8 | SC |
Ye(2015)51 | America | MYC | 825 | TISSUE | 70% | IHC | 58.9(1,187) | 1.89(1.26,3.94) | OS | 8 | R |
America | BCL2 | 849 | TISSUE | 70% | IHC | 58.9(1,187) | 1.67(1.14,2.46) | OS | 8 | R | |
America | MYCBCL2 | 831 | TISSUE | 70%70% | IHC | 58.9(1,187) | 2.54(1.65,3.94) | OS | 8 | R | |
Scott(2015)52 | British | MYCBCL2 | 339 | FFPE | 40%50% | IHC | 78(9,158.4) | 1.9(1.4,3.1) | OS | 7 | R |
Fan(2015)53 | China | MYC | 141 | FFPE | 40% | IHC | 30(3,112) | 3.127(1.649,5.929) | OS | 8 | R |
China | BCL2 | 141 | FFPE | 50% | IHC | 30(3,112) | 0.934(0.465,1.875) | OS | 8 | R | |
Perry(2013)(T)54 | America | MYC | 106 | FFPE | 50% | IHC | NR | 2.15(1.08,4.31) | OS | 7 | SC |
America | BCL2 | 106 | FFPE | 30% | IHC | NR | 2.06(1.07,3.96) | OS | 7 | SC | |
America | MYCBCL2 | 106 | FFPE | 50%30% | IHC | NR | 9.24(1.2,70.64) | OS | 7 | R | |
(V) | British | MYCBCL2 | 205 | FFPE | 40%50% | IHC | NR | 2.79(0.37,21.38) | OS | 7 | R |
Green(2012)(T)35 | Denmark | MYCBCL2 | 193 | FFPE | 40%70% | IHC | 56(1,99) | 4.48(2.69,7.44) | OS | 8 | R |
(V) | Mix | MYCBCL2 | 116 | FFPE | 40%70% | IHC | 33(1,102) | 2.44(1.23,4.86) | OS | 8 | R |
Hu(2013)17 | Mix | MYC | 466 | FFPE | 40% | IHC | 57 | 1.77(1.26,2.48) | OS | 8 | SC |
Mix | BCL2 | 466 | FFPE | 70% | IHC | 57 | 2.00(1.45,2.74) | OS | 8 | SC | |
Mix | MYCBCL2 | 411 | FFPE | 40%70% | IHC | 57 | 2.52(1.73,3.67) | OS | 8 | R | |
Yan(2014)16 | China | MYC | 118 | FFPE | 40% | IHC | 37(1,145) | 4.12(1.86,9.10) | OS | 7 | R |
China | BCL2 | 118 | FFPE | 70% | IHC | 37(1,145) | 1.48(0.71,3.07) | OS | 7 | R | |
China | MYCBCL2 | 115 | FFPE | 40%70% | IHC | 37(1,145) | 2.67(1.60,4.48) | OS | 7 | R | |
Xu(2017)55 | China | MYCBCL2 | 204 | FFPE | 40%70% | IHC | 40.5(0.6,154.2) | 2.384(1.222,4.652) | OS | 8 | R |
Keisuke(2016)56 | Japan | MYC | 61 | FFPE | 30% | IHC | 40(2,127) | 1.361(0.556,3.334) | OS | 8 | R |
Japan | BCL2 | 61 | FFPE | 1% | IHC | 40(2,127) | 3.481(1.158,10.46) | OS | 8 | R | |
Kluk(2012)57 | America | MYC | 38 | FFPE | 50% | IHC | 31(2,69) | 5.22(0.35,77.47) | OS | 7 | SC |
Horn(2013)15 | Germany | MYC | 135 | FFPE | 40% | IHC | NR | 2.3(1.2,4.7) | OS | 8 | R |
Germany | BCL2 | 135 | FFPE | 1% | IHC | NR | 4.5(1.3,16.2) | OS | 8 | R | |
Kendrick(2014)(I)58 | America | BCL2 | 44 | FFPE | 50% | IHC | NR | 0.983(0.285,3.395) | OS | 8 | R |
(S) | America | BCL2 | 102 | FFPE | 50% | IHC | NR | 1.18(0.52,2.67) | OS | 8 | SC |
Kelli(2015)59 | America | MYCBCL2 | 69 | FFPE | 40%50% | IHC | 4.25(0.14,12.85) | 2.63(1.07,6.44) | OS | 8 | R |
Salles(2011)60 | Mix | BCL2 | 326 | FFPE | 75% | IHC | 4.4 | 1.4(0.9,2.2) | OS | 8 | R |
Monette(2015)20 | Mix | MYC | 535 | TISSUE | 70% | IHC | 45(30,176.1) | 1.83(1.4,2.41) | OS | 8 | R |
IHC: Immunohistochemistry FFPE: formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue R: reported qNPA: quantitative nuclease protection assay SC: survival curve NR: not reported T: training set V: validation set I: initial cohort S: second cohort TMA: tissue microarrays.
Meta-analysis
No significant heterogeneity among the included studies was detected in this meta-analysis, and the fixed-effect model was used to assess the pooled HRs for OS. There were eleven articles related to the expression of MYC protein. The combined HR of MYC protein overexpression was 1.96 (95%CI, 1.69–2.27) without heterogeneity (I2 = 17.2%, P = 0.280). Thirteen articles reported the association between BCL2 protein expression and prognosis of DLBCL. The pooled HR was 1.65 (95%CI, 1.43–1.89, I2 = 20.7%, P = 0.234). Additionally, twelve articles related to MYC and BCL2 protein co-overexpression and the combined HR was 2.58 (95%CI, 2.19–3.04, I2 = 17.2%, P = 0.275). The above results showed that MYC and BCL2 protein overexpression alone or co-overexpression can lead to inferior outcome, and the prognostic significance of co-overexpression is more prominent. Detailed results of the meta-analysis for MYC and/or BCL2 protein overexpression are listed in forest plots (Fig. 2).
Sensitivity analyses and publication bias
The results of sensitivity analyses indicated that removal of any study could not affect the overall pooled HRs (Fig. 3). There was no significant evidence for asymmetry in the funnel plots, and no significant evidence of publication bias was presented by Begg’s and Egger’s tests, except for the MYC protein overexpression. In Fig. 4b, there were two studies located at the right bottom which influenced the symmetry of funnel plot and the result of Egger’s test, but Begg’s test showed that there is no sign of bias. However, when comparing Egger’s test and Begg’s test, the former is more sensitive and the latter more conservative. Meanwhile this phenomenon can also be interpreted in view of the small number of included articles (n = 11) (Fig. 4).
Subgroup analyses
Low degree of heterogeneity was observed in our analyses with all three I2 < 25%. Yan et al. presented that DLBCLs in China appears to have many characteristics different from those in Western counties16. On the other hand, the cutoff values in different studies were established through different analysis including receiver-operating characteristic curves17, X-Tile statistical software18, and other means to determine the appropriate points, that lead to inconsistency. Accordingly, we can see that possible sources of heterogeneity included race and cut-off value, so the subgroup analyses were performed in terms of the two aspects. The subgroup analysis indicated that the heterogeneity source of BCL2 protein overexpression comes from cutoff which reveals that 50% had no effect on prognosis. The causes of this phenomenon were that the lower and higher cutoff values have preferable true positive rate and true negative rate respectively. And in terms of subgroup analysis by race, the heterogeneity of MYC protein overexpression comes from different populations. Furthermore, we did not do a subgroup analysis of MYC and BCL2 co-overexpression given subgroups too much (Fig. 5).
Discussion
Nowadays, protein overexpressions and gene rearrangements of MYC and BCL2 involved in “double-protein” and “double-hit” DLBCL are the most commonly used biomarkers to predict the poor prognosis in DLBCL patients treated with R-CHOP. “Double-hit” DLBCL is recognized by most as a less favorable prognostic factor. It is widely acknowledged that most institutions test MYC and BCL2 rearrangements for newly diagnostic DLBCLs, but protein overexpression is not routinely performed since there still has a small difference among studies. In addition, there are three reasons why we analyze protein expression: firstly, numerous studies have investigated the prognostic values of DHL or THL, and most of these studies are based on FISH, which is expensive, required expertise and not routinely performed at most institutions. But IHC has the advantages of rapidity, simplicity, economy and high sensitivity, and monoclonal antibodies used in IHC have been gradually commercialized lately, which is suitable to be widespread applied, and has potential ability to be used as a screening method. Secondly, FISH technology is commonly not used to detect genetic deregulation which affects gene expression on the transcriptional and translational levels19. But proteins are the functional molecules that play a biological role in the final stage, so protein expression level are likely to represents a more direct measure of the activity of a specific gene. Thirdly, earlier studies using FISH found that no more than 10% of DLBCLs harbored MYC and BCL2 rearrangements. But the recognition of DLBCL with MYC and/or BCL2 overexpression could be used to expand the spectrum of aggressive B-cell lymphomas and effective stratify patients. It can be seen from above that it’s urgent to illuminate the prognostic significance of MYC and/or BCL2 protein overexpression in DLBCL.
MYC oncogene is a transcription factor which play a critical role in cell proliferation, growth, metabolism, differentiation, apoptosis, and immune responses20. Its oncology family covering C-MYC, N-MYC, L-MYC that involved in various human cancers. Among them, C-MYC protein overexpression is related to B-cell lymphoma21. This gene located on human chromosome arm 8q24, and relevant rearrangements frequently involved other genes. Some evidences show that MYC partner gene is important, and if translocation to non-immunoglobulin (Ig) partner gene, then patients has little or no poor prognosis22. A major caused effect of MYC is B-cell proliferation23,24. Overexpression MYC has been implicated to play a role in the genesis of numerous human tumors25. And overexpression MYC at the protein level as an alternative may be useful to identify cases with inferior outcome because MYC may promotes cellular proliferation through the correlation between protein and serum Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor(s-VEGF)26. BCL2 is a central anti-apoptotic gene and located on chromosome 18q2127. Approximately 47–58% DLBCLs have BCL2 protein overexpression28. The gene controls the apoptosis of body’s normal cells and tumor cells, and involves in physiological DNA repair under normal circumstances. Thus, there is a synergistic effect to accelerate lymphoma progression when both MYC and BCL2 are activated at the same time. That is, MYC promotes cellular proliferation and BCL2 blocks cellular death29–31. Chromosomal rearrangements can result in deregulation of MYC and BCL2, but other mechanisms can achieve the same purpose, such as gene gains, amplifications, mutations, activation of nuclear factor-κB (NFκB) pathway signaling32 or by micro-RNA-dependent33,34 mechanisms. So just checking gene rearrangements by FISH is not enough, all of these reasons mentioned above can cause changes in the amount of protein product finally. As for the relationship between DHL and DE-DLBCL, Green et al. shows that the co-overexpression of MYC (implying proliferation) and BCL2 protein (implying anti-apoptosis) is likely a fundamental to the poor prognosis of DHL35. But Johnson et al. indicated that patients who experience MYC and BCL2 co-overexpression have a poor prognosis regardless of gene translocation36. And according to Rosenthal et al., the prognosis of DE-DLBCLs is superior than DHLs, the clinical features and outcomes of DE-DLBCLs lies middle between DHL and DLBCL not otherwise specified (NOS). Beyond that, the paper also put forward that DHL is mainly observed in the GCB subset while cases with DE-DLBCL are observed in both ABC and GCB subsets, meanwhile DE-DLBCL encompasses more range than DHL37. These two types have close connections as well as many differences. It’s better to carry out prospective multicenter trials in large cohorts of patients that have DE-DLBCL and/or DHL to explain the true correlation between them. The overexpression of MYC and/or BCL2, doesn’t define a new tumor biology but rather, should be considered as an auxiliary prognostic signature that characterized a subset in DLBCL38. Aiming at the studies concerning synergistic effect between the two genes, they suggested that the negative prognostic impact of MYC or BCL2 protein overexpression alone was amplified when co-overexpression mixed into them. But there are other reasons can lead to this phenomenon. On the one hand, different studies use different antibodies, fixation methods, staining and scoring methods to perform IHC, and the cut-off values are diverse. On the other hand, we cannot deny the intervention of BCL6 gene or other related mechanisms affecting the results. We expected more studies could explain these complexities by further careful stratify. Given that DLBCL is a highly heterogeneous disease, so it is a good idea to combine other indicators to prediction. These indicators including non-IG MYC partners, BCL6 gene activation and the presence of TP53 mutations or expression, as well as others not listed there. In our study, a single protein overexpression (without considering another protein) has a poor outcome, while the prognosis of co-overexpression is inferior than the two cases mentioned earlier. It also reflects from another aspect that the significance of co-overexpression on prognosis may be more valuable.
Detected the new biomarkers that influenced outcome is absolutely vital in DLBCLs, at the same time, it’s equally important to confirm the standard therapeutic strategies that can play an effective role of improving prognosis in poor risk subgroups. Clinical outcomes of DHL and DE-DLBCL treated with R-CHOP generally exert disappointing, and which has led to recommend intensification of therapy. There have been many studies evaluated the outcomes or complete response (CR) rate treated with different induction regimens in DHL, including dose-adjusted R-EPOCH39,40, R-hyper-CVAD41, DA-R-ECHOP42. But no study demonstrated advantages of using intensive regimen in DE-DLBCLs. The role of autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) remains controversial in DE-DLBCLs and DHLs with restricted available data and conflicting results. DE-DLBCL was associated with a trend towards reduced progression free survival (PFS) receiving ASCT, but this was not statistically significant due to small sample size43. The optimal treatment strategies in these two types is still not well defined as many studies classify them together and outcomes influenced by the incidence of central nervous system (CNS) disease44,45. Establishing novel regimens that targeted MYC and/or BCL2 protein illuminates the new direction. BCL2 inhibitors such as ABT-199 may work on BCL2 protein46, while developing inhibitors that target MYC protein is not easy owing to its structure.
The current study is the first systematic review and meta-analysis related to the prognosis of MYC and/or BCL2 protein overexpression in R-CHOP treated DLBCLs. Even though, there still remain some deficiencies in the current study. The application of new biomarkers needs certification in a clinical trial or a larger cohort, and a standard therapeutic strategy for such cases remains to be established. Furthermore, relevant analyses of BCL6 weren’t performed due to its rarity. In conclusion, our analysis suggests that MYC and/or BCL2 protein overexpression, and particularly co-overexpression can be readily used to identify patients who have an unsatisfactory prognosis in DLBCL when treated with R-CHOP, and MYC and BCL2 could be candidates for novel therapeutic targets.
Data availability
All datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are included in this article.
Acknowledgements
This study was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (item number: 81473073). We thank for all the patients and clinical investigators who are involved in the studies selected in the meta-analysis.
Author Contributions
Lu Li was responsible for the collection of data, statistical analyses and drafting the manuscript. Tong Wang, Lu Li contributed to the planning and conception of this study. Lu Li, Yanyan Li, Xue Gao performed the literature search. Lu Li and Ximei Que assessed the study quality. Mingxing Yu, Kaili Ma and Yanfeng Xi extracted relevant contents. Tong Wang, Lu Li, Qian Gao reviewed and edited the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript.
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Martelli M, et al. Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 2013;87:146–171. doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2012.12.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Ziepert M, et al. Standard International prognostic index remains a valid predictor of outcome for patients with aggressive CD20+ B-cell lymphoma in the rituximab era. J. Clin. Oncol. 2010;28:2373–2380. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.26.2493. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Pfreundschuh M. Growing importance of MYC/BCL2 immunohistochemistry in diffuse large B-cell lymphomas. Journal of Clinical Oncology Official Journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2012;30:3433–3435. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.44.4729. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Swerdlow & Steven, H. WHO classification of tumours of haematopoietic and lymphoid tissues. (International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2008).
- 5.Lenz G, et al. Molecular subtypes of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma arise by distinct genetic pathways. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2008;105:13520–13525. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0804295105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Siebenlist U. Stromal Gene Signatures in Large-B-Cell Lymphomas. New England Journal of Medicine. 2008;359:2313. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0802885. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Swerdlow SH, et al. Blood. 2016. The 2016 revision of the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of lymphoid neoplasms; p. 2375. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Stroup D, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283:2008–2012. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.15.2008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Moher D, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Open medicine: a peer-reviewed, independent, open-access journal. 2009;3:e123. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. European Journal of Epidemiology. 2010;25:603–605. doi: 10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Parmar MKB, Torri V, Stewart L. Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Statistics in Medicine. 1998;17:2815. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19981230)17:24<2815::AID-SIM110>3.0.CO;2-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Tierney JF, Stewart LA, Ghersi D, Burdett S, Sydes MR. Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis. Trials, 8,1(2007-06-07) 2007;8:16. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-8-16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 1994;50:1088. doi: 10.2307/2533446. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M. & Minder, C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Bmj British Medical Journal. 1997;315:629–634. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Horn H, et al. MYC status in concert with BCL2 and BCL6 expression predicts outcome in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Blood. 2013;121:2253. doi: 10.1182/blood-2012-06-435842. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Yan LX, et al. MYC expression in concert with BCL2 and BCL6 expression predicts outcome in Chinese patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified. Plos One. 2014;9:e104068. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0104068. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Hu S, et al. MYC/BCL2 protein coexpression contributes to the inferior survival of activated B-cell subtype of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and demonstrates high-risk gene expression signatures: a report from The International DLBCL Rituximab-CHOP Consortium Program. Blood. 2013;121:4021–4031. doi: 10.1182/blood-2012-10-460063. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Johnson NA, et al. Concurrent Expression of MYC and BCL2 in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Treated With Rituximab Plus Cyclophosphamide, Doxorubicin, Vincristine, and Prednisone. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2012;30:3452–3459. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.41.0985. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Ventura RA, et al. FISH Analysis for the Detection of Lymphoma-Associated Chromosomal Abnormalities in Routine Paraffin-Embedded Tissue. Journal of Molecular Diagnostics Jmd. 2006;8:141. doi: 10.2353/jmoldx.2006.050083. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Xu-Monette ZY, et al. Clinical features, tumor biology, and prognosis associated with MYC rearrangement and Myc overexpression in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients treated with rituximab-CHOP. Modern Pathology An Official Journal of the United States & Canadian Academy of Pathology Inc. 2015;28:1555. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2015.118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Zhao XF, et al. C-MYC rearrangements are frequent in aggressive mature B-Cell lymphoma with atypical morphology. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2008;1:65–74. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Pedersen MØ, et al. MYC translocation partner gene determines survival of patients with large B‐cell lymphoma with MYC‐ or double‐hit MYC/BCL2 translocations. European Journal of Haematology. 2013;92:42–48. doi: 10.1111/ejh.12212. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.de Alboran IM, et al. Analysis of C-MYC function in normal cells via conditional gene-targeted mutation. Immunity. 2001;14:45. doi: 10.1016/S1074-7613(01)00088-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Habib T, et al. Myc stimulates B lymphocyte differentiation and amplifies calcium signaling. Journal of Cell Biology. 2007;179:717. doi: 10.1083/jcb.200704173. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Marcu KB, Bossone SA, Patel AJ. Myc function and regulation. Annual Review of Biochemistry. 1992;61:809. doi: 10.1146/annurev.bi.61.070192.004113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Aref S, Mabed M, Zalata K, Sakrana M, Askalany HE. The Interplay Between C-Myc Oncogene Expression and Circulating Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (sVEGF), Its Antagonist Receptor, Soluble Flt-1 in Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL): Relationship to Patient Outcome. Leuk Lymphoma. 2004;45:499–506. doi: 10.1080/10428190310001607151. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Tsujimoto Y, Cossman J, Jaffe E, Croce CM. Involvement of the bcl-2 gene in human follicular lymphoma. Science. 1985;228:1440. doi: 10.1126/science.3874430. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Vaidya R, Witzig TE. Prognostic factors for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in the R(X)CHOP era. Annals of Oncology Official Journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology. 2014;25:2124. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdu109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Klapproth K, Wirth T. Advances in the understanding of MYC-induced lymphomagenesis. British Journal of Haematology. 2010;149:484. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2010.08159.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Marin MC, Hsu B, Stephens LC, Brisbay S, Mcdonnell TJ. The functional basis of c-myc and bcl-2 complementation during multistep lymphomagenesis in vivo. Experimental Cell Research. 1995;217:240. doi: 10.1006/excr.1995.1083. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Rd SA, Young RM, Staudt LM. Pathogenesis of human B cell lymphomas. Annual Review of Immunology. 2012;30:565. doi: 10.1146/annurev-immunol-020711-075027. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Young RM, Rd SA, Phelan JD, Staudt LM. B-Cell Receptor Signaling in Diffuse Large B-Cell lymphoma. Seminars in Hematology. 2015;52:77. doi: 10.1053/j.seminhematol.2015.01.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Leucci E, et al. MYC translocation‐negative classical Burkitt lymphoma cases: an alternative pathogenetic mechanism involving miRNA deregulation. Journal of Pathology. 2008;216:440–450. doi: 10.1002/path.2410. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Onnis A, et al. Alteration of MicroRNAs Regulated by c-Myc in Burkitt Lymphoma. Plos One. 2010;5:69–69. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0012960. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Green TM, et al. Immunohistochemical double-hit score is a strong predictor of outcome in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone. Journal of Clinical Oncology Official Journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2012;30:3460. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.41.4342. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Johnson N, et al. Concurrent expression of MYC and BCL2 in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone. J. Clin. Oncol. 2012;30:3452–3459. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.41.0985. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Rosenthal A, Younes A. High grade B-cell lymphoma with rearrangements of MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6: Double hit and triple hit lymphomas and double expressing lymphoma. Blood Rev. 2017;31:37–42. doi: 10.1016/j.blre.2016.09.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Sesques P, Johnson N. Approach to the diagnosis and treatment of high-grade B-cell lymphomas with MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements. Blood. 2017;129:280–288. doi: 10.1182/blood-2016-02-636316. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Howlett C, et al. Front-line, dose-escalated immunochemotherapy is associated with a significant progression-free survival advantage in patients with double-hit lymphomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Haematology. 2015;170:504. doi: 10.1111/bjh.13463. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Abramson JS, Barnes JA, Feng Y. Double hit lymphomas: Evaluation of prognostic factors and impact of therapy [abstract] Nature. 2012;455:684–688. [Google Scholar]
- 41.Li S, et al. B-cell lymphomas with MYC/8q24 rearrangements and IGH@BCL2/t(14;18)(q32; q21): an aggressive disease with heterogeneous histology, germinal center B-cell immunophenotype and poor outcome. Modern Pathology An Official Journal of the United States & Canadian Academy of Pathology Inc. 2012;25:145. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2011.147. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Dunleavy, K., Fanale, M. & Lacasce, A. Preliminary report of a multicenter prospective phase II study of DA-EPOCH-R in MYC-rearranged aggressive B-cell lymphoma. Blood124 (2014).
- 43.Puvvada SD, et al. Outcomes of MYC‐associated lymphomas after R‐CHOP with and without consolidative autologous stem cell transplant: subset analysis of randomized trial intergroup SWOG S9704. British Journal of Haematology. 2016;174:686. doi: 10.1111/bjh.14100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Oki Y, et al. Double hit lymphoma: the MD Anderson Cancer Center clinical experience. British Journal of Haematology. 2014;166:891. doi: 10.1111/bjh.12982. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Savage KJ, et al. The impact of dual expression of MYC and BCL2 by immunohistochemistry on the risk of CNS relapse in DLBCL. Blood. 2016;127:2182. doi: 10.1182/blood-2015-10-676700. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Li L, et al. Synergistic Induction of Apoptosis in High-Risk DLBCL by BCL2 Inhibition with ABT-199 Combined With Pharmacologic Loss of MCL1. Leukemia. 2015;29:1702–1712. doi: 10.1038/leu.2015.99. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Zhou M, et al. MYC protein expression is associated with poor prognosis in diffuse large B cell lymphoma patients treated with RCHOP chemotherapy. Tumour Biol. 2014;35:6757–6762. doi: 10.1007/s13277-014-1907-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Xumonette ZY, et al. Clinical and biological significance of de novo CD5+ diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in Western countries. Oncotarget. 2015;6:5615–5633. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.3479. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Rimsza L, et al. Gene expression predicts overall survival in paraffin-embedded tissues of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with R-CHOP. Blood. 2008;112:3425–3433. doi: 10.1182/blood-2008-02-137372. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Iqbal J, et al. BCL2 predicts survival in germinal center B-cell-like diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with CHOP-like therapy and rituximab. Clinical Cancer Research An Official Journal of the American Association for Cancer Research. 2011;17:7785. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-0267. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Ye Q, et al. Prognostic impact of concurrentMYCandBCL6rearrangements and expression inde novodiffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Oncotarget. 2016;7:2401–2416. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.6262. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Scott DW, et al. Prognostic Significance of Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Cell of Origin Determined by Digital Gene Expression in Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-Embedded Tissue Biopsies. Journal of Clinical Oncology Official Journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2015;33:2848–2856. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.60.2383. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Lu TX, et al. MYC or BCL2 copy number aberration is a strong predictor of outcome in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Oncotarget. 2015;6:18374–18388. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.4073. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Perry AM, et al. MYC and BCL2 protein expression predicts survival in patients with diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma treated with rituximab. British Journal of Haematology. 2014;165:382–391. doi: 10.1111/bjh.12763. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Xu P, et al. B-cell Function Gene Mutations in Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma: A Retrospective Cohort Study. EBioMedicine. 2017;16:106–114. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2017.01.027. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Keisuke K, et al. MYCtranslocation and/or BCL 2 protein expression are associated with poor prognosis in diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma. Cancer Science. 2016;107:853. doi: 10.1111/cas.12942. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Kluk MJ, et al. Immunohistochemical detection of MYC-driven diffuse large B-cell lymphomas. Plos One. 2012;7:e33813. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0033813. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Kendrick SL, et al. BCL2 Antibodies Targeted At Different Epitopes Detect Varying Levels ofProtein Expression and Correlate with Frequent Gene Amplification in Diffuse Large B CellLymphoma. Human Pathology. 2014;45:2144. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2014.06.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Schneider KMC, et al. Dual expression of MYC and BCL2 proteins predicts worse outcomes in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Leukemia & Lymphoma. 2016;57:1640. doi: 10.3109/10428194.2015.1101099. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Salles G, et al. Prognostic significance of immunohistochemical biomarkers in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: A study from the Lunenburg Lymphoma Biomarker Consortium. Blood. 2011;117:7070–7078. doi: 10.1182/blood-2011-04-345256. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
All datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are included in this article.