The Impact of Scoring Method on Accuracy and Reproducibility of Hans Cell-of-Origin Prediction in Excisional Biopsies of Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma, Not Otherwise Specified.

Oleksandr Yanko, Andrew G Lytle, Pedro Farinha, Merrill Boyle, Graham W Slack, David W Scott, Jeffrey W Craig
{"title":"The Impact of Scoring Method on Accuracy and Reproducibility of Hans Cell-of-Origin Prediction in Excisional Biopsies of Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma, Not Otherwise Specified.","authors":"Oleksandr Yanko, Andrew G Lytle, Pedro Farinha, Merrill Boyle, Graham W Slack, David W Scott, Jeffrey W Craig","doi":"10.5858/arpa.2024-0366-OA","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context.—: </strong>Aided by tissue microarray (TMA) technology, several RNA-correlated immunohistochemistry-based algorithms have been developed for cell-of-origin (COO) prediction in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified (DLBCL-NOS). However, there is currently no empirical evidence to guide the optimal application of these algorithms to whole tissue sections (WTSs).</p><p><strong>Objective.—: </strong>To assess the impact of various scoring methods on the accuracy and reproducibility of the popular Hans algorithm.</p><p><strong>Design.—: </strong>We compared 3 different WTS-based scoring methods, designated as global, selective, and hotspot scoring, to a matched TMA evaluation and gold standard RNA analysis (Lymph2Cx; germinal center B cell n = 64; activated B cell/unclassified n = 68) using a representative series of 132 excisional biopsies of de novo DLBCL-NOS. Positivity scores (10% increments) were submitted by 3 expert lymphoma pathologists, with 30% or more defining positivity.</p><p><strong>Results.—: </strong>Sixty-eight of the 132 cases of DLBCL-NOS (52%) exhibited variation in Hans immunohistochemistry marker phenotype as a consequence of scoring method and/or interscorer discordance. Although this led to changes in Hans COO assignment in 27 of 132 cases (20%), none of the WTS-based scoring methods were statistically inferior to one another in terms of raw accuracy. Hotspot scoring yielded the lowest proportion of borderline scores (20%-40% range) for BCL6 transcription repressor (BCL6) and IRF4 transcription factor (MUM1) but negatively impacted the balance between sensitivity and specificity for these markers. Selective scoring was associated with significantly worse interscorer concordance compared to TMA evaluation, which it was designed to replicate.</p><p><strong>Conclusions.—: </strong>Overall, our data favor the use of global scoring for its noninferior accuracy, solid interscorer concordance, nonnegative influence on individual Hans markers, and current widespread use.</p>","PeriodicalId":93883,"journal":{"name":"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2024-0366-OA","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context.—: Aided by tissue microarray (TMA) technology, several RNA-correlated immunohistochemistry-based algorithms have been developed for cell-of-origin (COO) prediction in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified (DLBCL-NOS). However, there is currently no empirical evidence to guide the optimal application of these algorithms to whole tissue sections (WTSs).

Objective.—: To assess the impact of various scoring methods on the accuracy and reproducibility of the popular Hans algorithm.

Design.—: We compared 3 different WTS-based scoring methods, designated as global, selective, and hotspot scoring, to a matched TMA evaluation and gold standard RNA analysis (Lymph2Cx; germinal center B cell n = 64; activated B cell/unclassified n = 68) using a representative series of 132 excisional biopsies of de novo DLBCL-NOS. Positivity scores (10% increments) were submitted by 3 expert lymphoma pathologists, with 30% or more defining positivity.

Results.—: Sixty-eight of the 132 cases of DLBCL-NOS (52%) exhibited variation in Hans immunohistochemistry marker phenotype as a consequence of scoring method and/or interscorer discordance. Although this led to changes in Hans COO assignment in 27 of 132 cases (20%), none of the WTS-based scoring methods were statistically inferior to one another in terms of raw accuracy. Hotspot scoring yielded the lowest proportion of borderline scores (20%-40% range) for BCL6 transcription repressor (BCL6) and IRF4 transcription factor (MUM1) but negatively impacted the balance between sensitivity and specificity for these markers. Selective scoring was associated with significantly worse interscorer concordance compared to TMA evaluation, which it was designed to replicate.

Conclusions.—: Overall, our data favor the use of global scoring for its noninferior accuracy, solid interscorer concordance, nonnegative influence on individual Hans markers, and current widespread use.

评分方法对弥漫性大b细胞淋巴瘤切除活检中汉斯细胞起源预测的准确性和可重复性的影响,未另行说明。
上下文。-:在组织微阵列(TMA)技术的帮助下,已经开发了几种基于rna相关免疫组织化学的算法,用于预测弥漫性大b细胞淋巴瘤(DLBCL-NOS)的细胞起源(COO)。然而,目前还没有经验证据来指导这些算法在全组织切片(WTSs)中的最佳应用。-:评估各种评分方法对流行的汉斯算法的准确性和可重复性的影响。-:我们比较了3种不同的基于wts的评分方法,指定为全局,选择性和热点评分,与匹配的TMA评估和金标准RNA分析(淋巴2cx;生发中心B细胞n = 64;活化B细胞/未分类n = 68),采用具有代表性的132例新生DLBCL-NOS的切除活检。阳性评分(增量10%)由3名淋巴瘤病理学专家提交,其中30%或更多的阳性定义。-: 132例DLBCL-NOS中有68例(52%)由于评分方法和/或评分者之间的不一致而表现出Hans免疫组织化学标志物表型的变化。尽管这导致132例患者中有27例(20%)的Hans COO分配发生了变化,但就原始准确性而言,基于wts的评分方法在统计学上都不逊色。热点评分对BCL6转录抑制因子(BCL6)和IRF4转录因子(MUM1)的临界评分比例最低(20%-40%范围),但对这些标记的敏感性和特异性之间的平衡产生负面影响。与TMA评估相比,选择性评分与评分者之间的一致性显著较差相关,其目的是为了重复。总体而言,我们的数据支持使用全局评分,因为它具有非劣势准确性,可靠的评分者之间的一致性,对单个Hans标记的非负面影响,并且目前广泛使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信