| Title |
Round-robin test for the cell-of-origin classification of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma—a feasibility study using full slide staining
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Virchows Archiv, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00428-018-2367-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sarah Reinke, Julia Richter, Falko Fend, Alfred Feller, Martin-Leo Hansmann, Katrin Hüttl, Ilske Oschlies, German Ott, Peter Möller, Andreas Rosenwald, Harald Stein, Michael Altenbuchinger, Rainer Spang, Wolfram Klapper |
| Abstract |
Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is subdivided by gene expression analysis (GEP) into two molecular subtypes named germinal center B-cell-like (GCB) and activated B-cell-like (ABC) after their putative cell-of-origin (COO). Determination of the COO is considered mandatory in any new-diagnosed DLBCL, not otherwise specified according to the updated WHO classification. Despite the fact that pathologists are free to choose the method for COO classification, immunohistochemical (IHC) assays are most widely used. However, to the best of our knowledge, no round-robin test to evaluate the interlaboratory variability has been published so far. Eight hematopathology laboratories participated in an interlaboratory test for COO classification of 10 DLBCL tumors using the IHC classifier comprising the expression of CD10, BCL6, and MUM1 (so-called Hans classifier). The results were compared with GEP for COO signature and, in a subset, with results obtained by image analysis. In 7/10 cases (70%), at least seven laboratories assigned a given case to the same COO subtype (one center assessed one sample as not analyzable), which was in agreement with the COO subtype determined by GEP. The results in 3/10 cases (30%) revealed discrepancies between centers and/or between IHC and GEP subtype. Whereas the CD10 staining results were highly reproducible, staining for MUM1 was inconsistent in 50% and for BCL6 in 40% of cases. Image analysis of 16 slides stained for BCL6 (N = 8) and MUM1 (N = 8) of the two cases with the highest disagreement in COO classification were in line with the score of the pathologists in 14/16 stainings analyzed (87.5%). This study describes the first round-robin test for COO subtyping in DLBCL using IHC and demonstrates that COO classification using the Hans classifier yields consistent results among experienced hematopathologists, even when variable staining protocols are used. Data from this small feasibility study need to be validated in larger cohorts. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 5 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 40% |
| Professor | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 60% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 September 2018.
All research outputs
#15,508,366
of 23,047,237 outputs
Outputs from Virchows Archiv
#1,285
of 1,970 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,489
of 327,168 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Virchows Archiv
#12
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,047,237 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,970 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,168 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.