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

College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Leukemia & lymphoma (Impact Factor: 2.89). 11/2011; 53(6):1105-12. DOI: 10.3109/10428194.2011.638717
Source: PubMed


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% confidence 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.

Download full-text


Available from: Sophia Wang,
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: As the number of cancer survivors continues to grow, research investigating the factors that affect cancer outcomes, such as disease recurrence, risk of second malignant neoplasms, and the late effects of cancer treatments, becomes ever more important. Numerous epidemiologic studies have investigated factors that affect cancer risk, but far fewer have addressed the extent to which demographic, lifestyle, genomic, clinical, and psychosocial factors influence cancer outcomes. To identify research priorities as well as resources and infrastructure needed to advance the field of cancer outcomes and survivorship research, the National Cancer Institute sponsored a workshop titled "Utilizing Data from Cancer Survivor Cohorts: Understanding the Current State of Knowledge and Developing Future Research Priorities" on November 3, 2011, in Washington, DC. This commentary highlights recent findings presented at the workshop, opportunities to leverage existing data, and recommendations for future research, data, and infrastructure needed to address high priority clinical and research questions. Multidisciplinary teams that include epidemiologists, clinicians, biostatisticians, and bioinformaticists will be essential to facilitate future cancer outcome studies focused on improving clinical care of cancer patients, identifying those at high risk of poor outcomes, and implementing effective interventions to ultimately improve the quality and duration of survival.
    Journal of the National Cancer Institute 11/2012; 105(2). DOI:10.1093/jnci/djs473 · 12.58 Impact Factor

  • Histopathology 08/2013; 63(2):293-4. DOI:10.1111/his.12125 · 3.45 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registries have been a source of biospecimens for cancer research for decades. Recently, registry-based biospecimen studies have become more practical, with the expansion of electronic networks for pathology and medical record reporting. Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded specimens are now used for next-generation sequencing and other molecular techniques. These developments create new opportunities for SEER biospecimen research. We evaluated 31 research articles published during 2005 to 2013 based on authors' confirmation that these studies involved linkage of SEER data to biospecimens. Rather than providing an exhaustive review of all possible articles, ourintent wastoindicate the breadth of research madepossibleby suchare source. Wealsosummarize responses to a 2012 questionnaire that was broadly distributed to the NCI intra- and extramural biospecimen research community. This included responses from 30 investigators who had used SEER biospecimens intheir research. The survey was not intended to be a systematic sample, but instead to provide anecdotal insight on strengths, limitations, and the future of SEER biospecimen research. Identified strengths of this research resource include biospecimen availability, cost, and annotation of data, including demographic information, stage, and survival. Shortcomings include limited annotation of clinical attributes such as detailed chemotherapy history and recurrence, and timeliness of turnaround following biospecimen requests. A review of selected SEERbiospecimen articles, investigator feedback, and technological advances reinforced our viewthat SEER biospecimen resources should be developed. This would advance cancer biology, etiology, and personalized therapy research.
    Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention 12/2014; 23(12):2681-7. DOI:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0490 · 4.13 Impact Factor