Prediction of outcomes for high-count monoclonal B lymphocytosis using an epigenetic and immunogenetic signature

1Citations
Citations of this article
10Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL) progresses to chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) requiring therapy at 1% to 5% per year. Improved prediction of progression would greatly benefit individuals with MBL. Patients with CLL separate into 3 distinct epigenetic subtypes (epitypes) with high prognostic significance, and recently the intermediate epitype has been shown to be enriched for high-risk immunoglobulin lambda variable (IGLV) 3-21 rearrangements, impacting outcomes for these patients. Here, we employed this combined strategy to generate the epigenetic and light chain immunoglobulin (ELCLV3-21) signature to classify 219 individuals with MBL. The ELCLV3-21 high-risk signature distinguished MBL individuals with a high probability of progression (39.9% and 71.1% at 5 and 10 years, respectively). ELCLV3-21 improved the accuracy of predicting time to therapy for individuals with MBL compared with other established prognostic indicators, including the CLL international prognostic index (c-statistic, 0.767 vs 0.668, respectively). Comparing ELCLV3-21 risk groups in MBL vs a cohort of 226 patients with CLL revealed ELCLV3-21 high-risk individuals with MBL had significantly shorter time to therapy (P = .003) and reduced overall survival (P = .03) compared with ELCLV3-21 low-risk individuals with CLL. These results highlight the power of the ELCLV3-21 approach to identify individuals with a higher likelihood of adverse clinical outcome and may provide a more accurate approach to classify individuals with small B-cell clones.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Abdelbaky, S. B., Giacopelli, B., Rabe, K. G., Yamaguchi, K., Wu, Y. Z., Yan, H., … Oakes, C. C. (2024). Prediction of outcomes for high-count monoclonal B lymphocytosis using an epigenetic and immunogenetic signature. Blood, 143(17), 1752–1757. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood.2023022180

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free