Frequent traces of EBV infection in Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphomas classified as EBV-negative by routine methods: expanding the landscape of EBV-related lymphoma

peer-reviewedThe Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) is linked to various B-cell lymphomas, including Burkitt lymphoma (BL), classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) at frequencies ranging, by routine techniques, from 5 to 10% of cases in DLBCL to >95% in endemic BL. Using higher-sensitivity methods, we recently detected EBV traces in a few EBV-negative BL cases, possibly suggesting a “hit-and-run” mechanism. Here, we used routine and higher-sensitivity methods (qPCR and ddPCR for conserved EBV genomic regions and miRNAs on microdissected tumor cells; EBNA1 mRNA In situ detection by RNAscope) to assess EBV infection in a larger lymphoma cohort [19 BL, 34 DLBCL, 44 cHL, 50 follicular lymphomas (FL), 10 T-lymphoblastic lymphomas (T-LL), 20 hairy cell leukemias (HCL), 10 mantle cell lymphomas (MCL)], as well as in several lymphoma cell lines (9 cHL and 6 BL). qPCR, ddPCR, and RNAscope consistently documented the presence of multiple EBV nucleic acids in rare tumor cells of several cases EBV-negative by conventional methods that all belonged to lymphoma entities clearly related to EBV (BL, 6/9 cases; cHL, 16/32 cases; DLBCL, 11/30 cases), in contrast to fewer cases (3/47 cases) of FL (where the role of EBV is more elusive) and no cases (0/40) of control lymphomas unrelated to EBV (HCL, T-LL, MCL). Similarly, we revealed traces of EBV infection in 4/5 BL and 6/7 HL cell lines otherwise conventionally classified as EBV negative. Interestingly, additional EBV-positive cases (1 DLBCL, 2 cHL) relapsed as EBV-negative by routine methods while showing EBNA1 expression in rare tumor cells by RNAscope. The relapse specimens were clonally identical to their onset biopsies, indicating that the lymphoma clone can largely loose the EBV genome over time but traces of EBV infection are still detectable by high-sensitivity methods. We suggest EBV may contribute to lymphoma pathogenesis more widely than currently acknowledged

Is computer aided detection (CAD) cost effective in screening mammography? A model based on the CADET II study

BACKGROUND: Single reading with computer aided detection (CAD) is an alternative to double reading for detecting cancer in screening mammograms. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the use of a single reader with CAD is more cost-effective than double reading. METHODS: Based on data from the CADET II study, the cost-effectiveness of single reading with CAD versus double reading was measured in terms of cost per cancer detected. Cost (Pound (£), year 2007/08) of single reading with CAD versus double reading was estimated assuming a health and social service perspective and a 7 year time horizon. As the equipment cost varies according to the unit size a separate analysis was conducted for high, average and low volume screening units. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed by varying the reading time, equipment and assessment cost, recall rate and reader qualification. RESULTS: CAD is cost increasing for all sizes of screening unit. The introduction of CAD is cost-increasing compared to double reading because the cost of CAD equipment, staff training and the higher assessment cost associated with CAD are greater than the saving in reading costs. The introduction of single reading with CAD, in place of double reading, would produce an additional cost of £227 and £253 per 1,000 women screened in high and average volume units respectively. In low volume screening units, the high cost of purchasing the equipment will results in an additional cost of £590 per 1,000 women screened.One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the factors having the greatest effect on the cost-effectiveness of CAD with single reading compared with double reading were the reading time and the reader's professional qualification (radiologist versus advanced practitioner). CONCLUSIONS: Without improvements in CAD effectiveness (e.g. a decrease in the recall rate) CAD is unlikely to be a cost effective alternative to double reading for mammography screening in UK. This study provides updated estimates of CAD costs in a full-field digital system and assessment cost for women who are re-called after initial screening. However, the model is highly sensitive to various parameters e.g. reading time, reader qualification, and equipment cost