Key result
Cytogenetic abnormalities involving chromosomes 1 (72.4%), 6q (58.6%), and 18 (55.2%) are present in greater than 50% of intravascular large B-cell lymphoma cases.
Observational (n=29)
Cytogenetic analysis of ILBCL reveals highly complex karyotypes with recurrent abnormalities in chromosomes 1, 6q, and 18 in over 50% of cases.
Recurrent cytogenetic abnormalities in ILBCL merit consideration; leaves open their diagnostic or prognostic utility pending validation.
OBJECTIVES: Data characterizing the cytogenetic landscape of intravascular large B-cell lymphoma (ILBCL) are limited. Here, we developed a comprehensive karyotypic data set to identify recurrent cytogenetic abnormalities in ILBCL. METHODS: Cases of ILBCL with complete cytogenetic analysis were identified from an institutional database and the literature. The combined data were systematically reviewed for the presence of recurrent abnormalities. RESULTS: Four new cases were identified and combined with 25 karyotypes previously published in the literature. Karyotypes were uniformly complex with a median of 10 aberrations. In total, 72.4% had abnormalities involving chromosome 1, with 31.0% involving rearrangements of 1p13 or 1q21; 58.6% had abnormalities involving chromosome 6, which in almost all cases involved 6q; 34.5% had abnormalities involving chromosome 14, with 27.6% involving rearrangements of 14q32; and 55.2% had abnormalities of chromosome 18, with 37.9% harboring trisomy 18. CONCLUSIONS: Recurrent cytogenetic abnormalities involving chromosomes 1, 6q, and 18 are present in greater than 50% of ILBCL.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Klairmont et al. (2018) conducted an observational in Intravascular large B-cell lymphoma (ILBCL) (n=29). Cytogenetic abnormalities was evaluated on Recurrent cytogenetic abnormalities. Cytogenetic abnormalities involving chromosomes 1 (72.4%), 6q (58.6%), and 18 (55.2%) are present in greater than 50% of intravascular large B-cell lymphoma cases.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: