Next Article in Journal
Anti-Cancer Activity of Cannabis sativa Phytocannabinoids: Molecular Mechanisms and Potential in the Fight against Ovarian Cancer and Stem Cells
Next Article in Special Issue
Epstein–Barr Virus Infection in Cancer
Previous Article in Journal
The Immune Landscape of Papillary Thyroid Cancer in the Context of Autoimmune Thyroiditis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Clinical and Therapeutic Implications of Epstein–Barr Virus in HIV-Related Lymphomas
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 14
Issue 17
10.3390/cancers14174297
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Impact of Tumour Epstein–Barr Virus Status on Clinical Outcome in Patients with Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma (cHL): A Review of the Literature and Analysis of a Clinical Trial Cohort of Children with cHL

by
Mahdi Nohtani
1,2,
Katerina Vrzalikova
3,
Maha Ibrahim
4,
Judith E. Powell
5,
Éanna Fennell
1,2,
Susan Morgan
6,
Richard Grundy
7,
Keith McCarthy
8,
Sarah Dewberry
9,
Jan Bouchal
10,
Katerina Bouchalova
11,
Pamela Kearns
9 and
Paul G. Murray
2,10,*
1
Bernal Institute, University of Limerick, V94 T9PX Limerick, Ireland
2
School of Medicine, University of Limerick, V94 T9PX Limerick, Ireland
3
Institute of Immunology and Immunotherapy, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
4
Cancer Pathology Department, South Egypt Cancer Institute, Assiut University, Assiut 71526, Egypt
5
Department of Public Health & Epidemiology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
6
Department of Histopathology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, Sheffield S10 2JF, UK
7
Medical School, Queen’s Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK
8
Department of Histopathology, Wye Valley NHS Trust, Hereford HR1 2ER, UK
9
Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit (CRCTU), Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, College of Medicine and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
10
Department of Clinical and Molecular Pathology, Institute of Molecular and Translational Medicine, Palacky University, 77900 Olomouc, Czech Republic
11
Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University, 77900 Olomouc, Czech Republic
 
add Show full affiliation list
 
remove Hide full affiliation list
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2022, 14(17), 4297; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14174297
Submission received: 3 July 2022 / Revised: 11 August 2022 / Accepted: 16 August 2022 / Published: 1 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Epstein-Barr Virus Infection in Cancer)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

The Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) contributes to different forms of human cancer, including a subset of classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL), a B-cell lymphoma with unusual histological features. Although the pathogenesis of EBV-associated cHL remains to be elucidated, biological investigations point to an important aetiological role for the virus in the development of this tumour. This is even more relevant now considering the potential opportunities that exist to treat EBV-associated disorders, for example, with immunotherapeutics or small molecule inhibitors targeting viral proteins. For this reason, we believe it is now timely to review the association between EBV and cHL and in particular to re-evaluate the impact of EBV status on clinical outcomes in cHL patients. Herein, we also report the impact of EBV on clinical outcomes in a cohort of children and adolescents with cHL.

Abstract

In this study, we have re-evaluated how EBV status influences clinical outcome. To accomplish this, we performed a literature review of all studies that have reported the effect of EBV status on patient outcome and also explored the effect of EBV positivity on outcome in a clinical trial of children with cHL from the UK. Our literature review revealed that almost all studies of older adults/elderly patients have reported an adverse effect of an EBV-positive status on outcome. In younger adults with cHL, EBV-positive status was either associated with a moderate beneficial effect or no effect, and the results in children and adolescents were conflicting. Our own analysis of a series of 166 children with cHL revealed no difference in overall survival between EBV-positive and EBV-negative groups (p = 0.942, log rank test). However, EBV-positive subjects had significantly longer event-free survival (p = 0.0026). Positive latent membrane protein 1 (LMP1) status was associated with a significantly lower risk of treatment failure in a Cox regression model (HR = 0.21, p = 0.005). In models that controlled for age, gender, and stage, EBV status had a similar effect size and statistical significance. This study highlights the age-related impact of EBV status on outcome in cHL patients and suggests different pathogenic effects of EBV at different stages of life.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) is characterised by rare malignant Hodgkin/Reed Sternberg (HRS) cells surrounded by a florid tumour microenvironment (TME) comprising different inflammatory cells. HRS cells are germinal centre (GC)-experienced B cells [1] but do not express a functional B-cell receptor (BCR); survival of these cells is mediated by activation of anti-apoptosis pathways crucial for cHL pathogenesis [2].
Following B-cell infection with EBV, extrachromosomal copies of circular genomes, known as episomes, are created by fusion of the viral terminal repeats (TRs) creating termini of a unique length [3]. The detection of TRs of different lengths indicates more than one infection event [3]. In contrast, TRs with an identical number of repeats are found in cHL and other EBV-associated cancers, indicating expansion from a single infected cell [4]. EBV is crucial also for cHL progression, as it is found during the course of cHL [5].
EBV protein expression in HRS cells is limited to (i) Epstein–Barr virus nuclear antigen-1 (EBNA1) [6], an essential replication and virus maintenance factor, as well as a transcription factor that regulates the expression of both viral and cellular genes [7,8,9,10]; EBNA1 has been shown to promote the growth and survival of cHL-derived cell lines [11,12] and (ii) two latent membrane proteins (LMPs) [13,14,15]; LMP1 is a constitutively active CD40 receptor [16] that activates oncogenic pathways including NF-κB, JAK/STAT, AP-1, and phospatidylinositol-3 kinase (PI3K)/AKT [17,18,19,20], whereas LMP2A is a BCR homologue [21,22] that can promote the survival of BCR-negative B cells [23,24,25].
Serological studies showing that antibody levels to EBV antigens were raised in HL patients provided early evidence for an aetiological role [26,27]. Later, people who develop EBV-positive cHL were shown to be more likely to have elevated antibody levels to EBV antigens compared to those who develop EBV-negative cHL [28]. Furthermore, infectious mononucleosis (IM), representing symptomatic primary EBV infection, was shown to increase the risk of EBV-positive, but not EBV-negative, cHL [29,30,31,32], and a seasonal peak in children diagnosed with cHL was shown for EBV-positive, but not for EBV-negative, cHL [33]; these data point to primary EBV infection as a trigger for the development of EBV-positive cHL. While only a small fraction of people infected with EBV will develop EBV-positive cHL [34], susceptibility is associated with variation in the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) region [35,36,37]; those with HLA-A*01 have an increased risk, and those with HLA-A*02 have a decreased risk [36,38,39].
EBV is present in HRS cells more frequently in male patients, in those with mixed cellularity disease, and in patients from resource-poor countries. Geographical differences might be explained by differing susceptibilities between ethnic groups [40,41]. For example, EBV-positive cHL is more common in Asians and Hispanics compared with whites or blacks and in South Asian children compared with non-South Asian children in the UK [40,42]. In resource-rich nations, the proportion of cHL with EBV is higher in older people and in children, with lower rates in young adults [43]. Jarrett et al. have proposed a four-disease model: (1) childhood cHL, which is frequently EBV-positive; (2) cHL of older adults, which is also often EBV-related; it is well known that aging is associated with decreased immune function, so this entity may be related to EBV reactivation; (3) EBV-negative disease in young adults, usually, but not always, of nodular sclerosis type; (4) EBV-associated cHL occurring after late EBV exposure [44].
While first-line combination chemotherapy and radiotherapy is effective for the majority of cHL patients, prognosis for patients with refractory or relapsed disease remains dismal, despite the use of newer targeted therapies such as brentuximab vedotin. The current treatments also cause significant long-term toxicities that include secondary malignancies, cardiopulmonary toxicity, hypothyroidism, and infertility. Outcomes are particularly poor for older patients (5-year survival 30–50% in patients older than 70 years). Despite overwhelming evidence supporting an aetiological role for EBV in cHL, EBV status does not currently influence patient management. Moreover, therapies designed to specifically target EBV are yet to be adopted.
In this study, we have performed a comprehensive literature review encompassing all relevant previous studies reporting the effect of EBV status on patient outcome. We have also separately explored the effect of EBV positivity in a clinical trial of children and adolescents with cHL from the United Kingdom in an attempt to clarify the apparently conflicting effects of EBV status on clinical outcomes in the paediatric setting.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Literature Review

Using the keywords “EBV” and “Hodgkin lymphoma,” we conducted a search on PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed; accessed on 2 February 2022). Additionally, we looked through the reference lists of the papers and manually included the publications missed by the original search. Using the title, names and affiliations of the authors, duplicate information or overlapping articles were eliminated. We confined our analysis to studies that used either in situ hybridisation to detect the Epstein–Barr-encoded RNAs (EBER1 and EBER2) and/or immunohistochemistry to identify expression of the EBV oncogene, LMP1. We excluded studies in which other virus proteins (LMP2A and EBNA1, which are less abundant in EBV-positive HRS cells) were used as targets. We also excluded studies that exclusively used PCR to detect EBV. NLPHL is regarded as a distinct disease entity, and it differs from cHL primarily in terms of morphology, phenotype, genetics, clinical behaviour and EBV positivity. Therefore, inclusion of these cases in studies was taken into account.

2.2. Analysis of a Clinical Trial Cohort of Children and Adolescents with cHL

Patients

Eligible patients included all children and adolescents (<18 years old) with newly diagnosed, untreated, biopsy-proven classical (i.e., excluding lymphocyte predominant subtype) HL who had been enrolled onto the HD 2000 02 (HD 3 trial) and for whom archival pathological material was available as FFPE sections (n = 189). Ethical approval and written informed consent were obtained from all patients and/or their parents/guardians in accordance with the then-current institutional and ethical committee guidelines. The results of this clinical trial and details of patient recruitment and treatment regimens have been reported previously [45].

2.3. Event-Free Survival and Overall Survival

Event-free survival (EFS) was calculated as the time from the date of diagnosis to the date of relapse, progression, or death from any cause. Patients who did not experience any events were censored at their last follow-up visit. Overall survival (OS) was measured from the date of diagnosis to the date of last follow-up visit or to the date of death.

2.4. EBV Detection

Immunohistochemistry for LMP1 was performed on paraffin sections from each case to detect the presence of EBV infection as previously described [14]. Specimens were recorded as either EBV-positive (LMP1 present within HRS cells) or EBV-negative (LMP1 not detectable in HRS cells).

2.5. Statistical Methods

Mann–Whitney U- and chi-squared tests were used to detect differences between EBV-positive and EBV-negative groups in terms of patient and disease characteristics. Differences in survival and event-free survival between EBV-positive and EBV-negative patients were investigated using Kaplan–Meier curves and log-rank tests. A Cox proportional hazards univariate analysis was also performed to ascertain the hazard ratio (HR) for event-free survival of each variable. The variables considered were EBV, age (≤12 and >12), sex, and disease stage early stages I/IIA and advanced stages IIB/III/IV). Multivariate Cox analysis was performed to determine which factors were independently predictive of event-free survival. Life-table methods were used to derive treatment failure rates (hazard) and the hazard ratio by EBV status at various time intervals after diagnosis. In order to determine that the 189patients that were eventually used in our analysis were representative of the whole cohort, chi-squared and t-tests were used to compare age, gender, subtype, stage, and symptoms between the two groups. All analyses used either SPSS Version 16 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) or R-4.1.2, and differences were deemed significant if the p-value was less than 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Literature Review

A total of 40 studies met the inclusion criteria set out above (Supplementary Table S1). We focused our analysis on those studies that had categorized patients by age group. We summarize the results of our analysis below.
Older adults/elderly patients with cHL: our literature review revealed that an EBV-positive status was associated with poor prognosis in older adults/elderly patients in six of seven studies [46,47,48,49,50,51,52].
Young adults with cHL: A modest beneficial effect of an EBV-positive status for young adults with cHL was demonstrated in four of eight studies. Three studies showed no significant effect of EBV, and one showed a negative impact of EBV on prognosis [46,47,48,53,54,55,56,57].
Paediatric and adolescent cHL: Eight studies explored the effect of EBV status on outcome in children or adolescents with cHL (Table 1). Engel et al. studied 47 patients (with follow up available on 36) and found significantly fewer deaths and longer median survival in EBV-positive cases [58]. Barros et al. studied 104 patients and showed that EBV was significantly associated with lower-risk nodular sclerosis disease [59]. Keegan et al. showed that in children <15 years old, EBV positivity was associated with longer survival, but this was only of borderline significance [46]. Three studies reported no significant effect of EBV status on outcome [60,61,62]. Two studies reported a negative effect of EBV on outcome in children. In the largest study to date, Claviez [63] reported the impact of EBV status on outcome in 842 children and adolescents. They found that LMP1 positivity was associated with significantly poorer overall survival (OS) but found no effect on failure-free survival (FFS); in fact, in their study, FFS was higher in EBV-positive (89.1%) compared with EBV-negative (84.1%) patients. In the second study, Koh et al. reported that in 135 children with HL, EBER positivity was associated with a significantly higher international prognostic score (IPS) and significantly lower OS, although positivity was not an independent risk factor for OS [64]. The authors did not report the influence of EBV status on FFS.

3.2. Analysis of a Clinical Trial Cohort of Children and Adolescents with cHL

Given the observed uncertainty of EBV’s effects on outcome in childhood and adolescent HL, we next examined the effects of EBV status on EFS and OS in a cohort of children and adolescents with cHL recruited to a clinical trial in the United Kingdom, where full clinical annotation of the sample collection, including reliable treatment, follow up, and outcome data were available. This trial has been reported previously, but EBV status has not been examined in this cohort before [45].
EBV status was tested in tissue from 189 trial subjects. Of these samples, 23 were excluded (six—identity uncertain; five—not lymphoid tissue; seven—test failed; one—repeated tests contradictory; four—not HL at Pathology Review). Sixty-two of the remaining 166 cases were EBV positive (34.4%, 95% CU 27.6–41.2%). The 189 patients included in this study were representative of the whole clinical trial cohort of 387 patients (Table 2).
Characteristics of the subjects, according to EBV status, are shown in Table 3. EBV-positive patients were significantly younger than EBV-negative patients, with a median age of 10.0 years, compared to 14.2 for EBV-negative subjects. EBV-positive cases were also less likely to have stage IV disease. The subtypes also differed significantly, EBV-positive tumours being less likely to be of nodular sclerosis subtype and more likely to be of mixed cellularity subtype.
In total, 14 deaths and 47 events were recorded (relapses, disease progression, persistent disease). Figure 1 shows Kaplan–Meier survival curves for overall survival (Figure 1a) and event-free survival (Figure 1b), by EBV status. There was no evidence of a difference between groups for overall survival (p = 0.942, log rank test). Event-free survival, however, was significantly poorer in EBV-negative subjects (p = 0.0026). As described above, fewer EBV-positive patients presented with stage IV disease than patients with EBV-negative cHL. The treatment for patients in this trial varied according to stage: patients with stage II and stage III disease received three cycles of ChlVbPP/ABVcD chemotherapy, whilst those with stage IV disease received four cycles. Therefore, the improved EFS observed for EBV-positive patients is not likely to be a consequence of more intensive chemotherapy.
In a Cox regression model, positive LMP1 status was associated with a significantly reduced risk of treatment failure (HR = 0.21, p = 0.005, Figure 2). EBV status retained a similar effect size and statistical significance in models adjusting for age, sex, and stage. We defined stage in two groups, early (stages I/IIA) and advanced (IIB/III/IV), based on risk stratification and treatment management guidelines [86,87]. Patients within the early group had reduced risk of failure compared to advanced stages, but this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.45), and EBV status remained the most predictive factor. Age also has a negative effect on patients’ outcome, with older patients having poorer outcomes, but this was not statistically significant.

4. Discussion

Notwithstanding some of the difficulties in drawing comparisons across different studies included in our literature review (different methodologies, patient recruitment, inclusion of NLPHL in some studies, different age cut-offs, etc.), we can draw several general conclusions. Thus, almost all studies of older adults/elderly patients reported an adverse effect of an EBV-positive status on outcome. In contrast, in younger adults with cHL, EBV-positive status was either associated with a moderate beneficial effect or no effect. It is possible that within the older adult group, EBV is not itself a driver of poorer outcomes but might be associated with other co-morbidities including reduced immunity and/or generally poorer health. Nevertheless, it should be noted that many older patients with cHL are unfit to receive standard-of-care combination chemotherapy; therefore, older people with EBV-positive cHL might benefit from therapies that specifically target EBV if they prove to be better tolerated than conventional chemotherapy. For a more detailed discussion of targeting EBV therapeutically in EBV-positive cHL and other cancers, the reader is referred to recent reviews [88,89,90].
The situation at first sight would appear to be less clear in children and adolescents. Thus, we found that of the eight studies that reported an effect of EBV on outcome, three showed a beneficial effect, three no effect, and two an adverse effect. However, it must be pointed out that of the three studies showing no effect, two of these, one from India [60] and the other from Turkey [61], showed very high rates of EBV detection (96.6% and 82.5%, respectively), meaning they were likely insufficiently powered to detect differences even if present. Moreover, of the two studies showing an adverse effect of EBV, one showed poorer overall survival (OS) only in some subgroups of the disease but no effect on failure-free survival (FFS) [63]. The other study found a significantly shorter OS for EBV-positive patients but did not report FFS [64]. It has been suggested previously that OS may not be the best end-point since factors other than those related to the primary treatment may influence outcome [66].
Given the uncertainty of EBV’s effects in the paediatric setting, we decided to study a separate cohort of children and adolescents with cHL recruited to a clinical trial [45]. We found that among 166 patients, EBV had no effect on OS but was associated with a significantly longer FFS. In a Cox regression model, EBV positivity was found to be associated with a significantly reduced risk of treatment failure. Moreover, EBV status retained a similar effect size and statistical significance in models adjusting for age, sex, and stage. Thus, our new data suggest that EBV might be associated with a better prognosis in children and adolescents, at least in the UK, and that it should be considered as a factor that could help stratify patients, for example, for de-escalation of therapy. Given the overall success of conventional therapies in children, OS may not be the best measure of outcome when assessing biological factors such as EBV status and which may be confounded by disease-unrelated deaths.
The cHL TME has been shown to vary with age and with EBV status (Figure 1). Thus, cytotoxic markers on T cells and numbers of CD16+ natural killer cells are increased in EBV-positive vs. EBV-negative cHL (cases included age-matched paediatric, adult, and elderly patients) [91]. EBV-positive paediatric cHL also exhibits a more cytotoxic TME with predominant Th1 polarisation, overexpression of CD8, TIA1, TBET, and granzyme B, and reduced FoxP3+ regulatory T cells (Tregs) compared with EBV-negative disease (Th2 and Th17) [92,93]. However, increased PDL1+ cells in EBV-positive paediatric cHL might blunt T-cell-mediated cytotoxicity [94]. In adult/elderly EBV-positive cHL, reduced granzyme B-positive T cells, increased Tregs, and limited interferon beta production indicate a more immunosuppressive TME, potentially contributing to the unfavourable outcome found in elderly cHL patients [95,96]. Furthermore, PDL1 is expressed more frequently on EBV-positive HRS cells rather than in the TME, where PD1 is predominantly found [97]. Thus, we speculate here that at least some of the age-related differences we have observed in our analysis might be because of differences in the TME between different patient groups (Figure 3). In this regard, it will be important to determine if EBV regulates the TME differently in these groups. We already know that EBV is a major regulator of the TME; effects that are mediated by LMP1 [98], LMP2A, and EBNA1 [99,100]. Conversely, the TME can also regulate virus gene expression in tumour cells [101,102].
In summary, a re-evaluation of the published literature presented here shows that in older adults and the elderly, an EBV-positive status is associated with poorer outcomes and that EBV-targeted therapies could be particularly valuable in this group of patients. Our literature review combined with a new analysis of a clinical trial cohort of children and adolescents with cHL suggest that while EBV-targeted therapies could also be useful in children, measuring EBV status might also be helpful in stratifying patients in future clinical trials.

5. Conclusions

Our literature review of the effects of EBV on outcomes for cHL patients combined with our own analysis of a cohort of paediatric and adolescent patients has shown important age-related effects. Currently, treatment for cHL patients is not stratified by EBV status, but this should be considered in future studies. For example, EBV status could be evaluated with the aim of reducing the harmful effects of harsh chemotherapeutic regimens used to treat cHL patients, particularly in childhood where there is a high risk of secondary malignancy and other complications. There is also a need to explore new opportunities to target EBV specifically, for example, with EBNA1 inhibitors or immunotherapies that target the virus. This could be particularly relevant for older adult/elderly patients where outcomes for EBV-positive patients are especially poor.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/cancers14174297/s1, Table S1: Supplementary Table S1, rawData.xls.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, P.G.M., P.K., M.N., K.B., J.B., S.M. and K.V.; methodology, J.E.P., M.N., É.F., P.K., S.M. and M.I.; resources, R.G. and K.M.; data curation, J.E.P., M.N., É.F., M.I. and S.D.; writing—original draft preparation and manuscript writing, P.G.M., M.N., K.V. and P.K.; visualisation, M.N., É.F. and J.E.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors acknowledge financial support from Blood Cancer UK and the Cancer Research UK Birmingham Centre, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom (KH). The work was also supported in part by a European Regional Development Fund Project (ENOCH: CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_019/0000868).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the UK National Research Ethics Committee (REC reference 16/WM/0037; IRAS Project no. 181189).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available in this article and supplementary material.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Küppers, R.; Rajewsky, K.; Zhao, M.; Simons, G.; Laumann, R.; Fischer, R.; Hansmann, M.L. Hodgkin disease: Hodgkin and Reed-Sternberg cells picked from histological sections show clonal immunoglobulin gene rearrangements and appear to be derived from B cells at various stages of development. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1994, 91, 10962–10966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Kanzler, H.; Kuppers, R.; Hansmann, M.L.; Rajewsky, K. Hodgkin and Reed-Sternberg cells in Hodgkin’s disease represent the outgrowth of a dominant tumor clone derived from (crippled) germinal center B cells. J. Exp. Med. 1996, 184, 1495–1505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Raab-Traub, N.; Flynn, K. The structure of the termini of the Epstein-Barr virus as a marker of clonal cellular proliferation. Cell 1986, 47, 883–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lardelli, P.; Garcia del Moral, R. Clonal Epstein-Barr virus virus genome in Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Blood 1990, 75, 1589–1590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Coates, P.J.; Slavin, G.; D’Ardenne, A.J. Persistence of Epstein-Barr virus in Reed-Sternberg cells throughout the course of Hodgkin’s disease. J. Pathol. 1991, 164, 291–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Grasser, F.A.; Murray, P.G.; Kremmer, E.; Klein, K.; Remberger, K.; Feiden, W.; Reynolds, G.; Niedobitek, G.; Young, L.S.; Mueller-Lantzsch, N. Monoclonal antibodies directed against the Epstein-Barr virus-encoded nuclear antigen 1 (EBNA1): Immunohistologic detection of EBNA1 in the malignant cells of Hodgkin’s disease. Blood 1994, 84, 3792–3798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Frappier, L. Contributions of Epstein–Barr Nuclear Antigen 1 (EBNA1) to Cell Immortalization and Survival. Viruses 2012, 4, 1537–1547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Frappier, L. EBNA1 and host factors in Epstein–Barr virus latent DNA replication. Curr. Opin. Virol. 2012, 2, 733–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Frappier, L. The Epstein-Barr Virus EBNA1 Protein. Scientifica 2012, 2012, 438204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tempera, I.; De Leo, A.; Kossenkov, A.V.; Cesaroni, M.; Song, H.; Dawany, N.; Showe, L.; Lu, F.; Wikramasinghe, P.; Lieberman, P.M. Identification of MEF2B, EBF1, and IL6R as Direct Gene Targets of Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV) Nuclear Antigen 1 Critical for EBV-Infected B-Lymphocyte Survival. J. Virol. 2015, 90, 345–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Flavell, J.R.; Baumforth, K.R.; Wood, V.H.; Davies, G.L.; Wei, W.; Reynolds, G.M.; Morgan, S.; Boyce, A.; Kelly, G.L.; Young, L.S.; et al. Down-regulation of the TGF-beta target gene, PTPRK, by the Epstein-Barr virus encoded EBNA1 contributes to the growth and survival of Hodgkin lymphoma cells. Blood 2008, 111, 292–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wood, V.H.; O’Neil, J.D.; Wei, W.; Stewart, S.E.; Dawson, C.W.; Young, L.S. Epstein-Barr virus-encoded EBNA1 regulates cellular gene transcription and modulates the STAT1 and TGFbeta signaling pathways. Oncogene 2007, 26, 4135–4147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Deacon, E.M.; Pallesen, G.; Niedobitek, G.; Crocker, J.; Brooks, L.; Rickinson, A.B.; Young, L.S. Epstein-Barr virus and Hodgkin’s disease: Transcriptional analysis of virus latency in the malignant cells. J. Exp. Med. 1993, 177, 339–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Murray, P.G.; Young, L.S.; Rowe, M.; Crocker, J. Immunohistochemical demonstration of the Epstein-Barr virus-encoded latent membrane protein in paraffin sections of Hodgkin’s disease. J. Pathol. 1992, 166, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Niedobitek, G.; Kremmer, E.; Herbst, H.; Whitehead, L.; Dawson, C.W.; Niedobitek, E.; Von Ostau, C.; Rooney, N.; Grasser, F.A.; Young, L.S. Immunohistochemical detection of the Epstein-Barr virus-encoded latent membrane protein 2A in Hodgkin’s disease and infectious mononucleosis. Blood 1997, 90, 1664–1672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lam, N.; Sugden, B. CD40 and its viral mimic, LMP1: Similar means to different ends. Cell Signal 2003, 15, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bargou, R.C.; Emmerich, F.; Krappmann, D.; Bommert, K.; Mapara, M.Y.; Arnold, W.; Royer, H.D.; Grinstein, E.; Greiner, A.; Scheidereit, C.; et al. Constitutive nuclear factor-kappaB-relA activation is required for proliferation and survival of Hodgkin’s disease tumor cells. J. Clin. Investig. 1997, 100, 2961–2969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Dutton, A.; Reynolds, G.M.; Dawson, C.W.; Young, L.S.; Murray, P.G. Constitutive activation of phosphatidyl-inositide 3 kinase contributes to the survival of Hodgkin’s lymphoma cells through a mechanism involving Akt kinase and mTOR. J. Pathol. 2005, 205, 498–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Heath, E.; Begue-Pastor, N.; Chaganti, S.; Croom-Carter, D.; Shannon-Lowe, C.; Kube, D.; Feederle, R.; Delecluse, H.-J.; Rickinson, A.B.; Bell, A.I. Epstein-Barr Virus Infection of Naïve B Cells In Vitro Frequently Selects Clones with Mutated Immunoglobulin Genotypes: Implications for Virus Biology. PLoS Pathog. 2012, 8, e1002697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Holtick, U.; Vockerodt, M.; Pinkert, D.; Schoof, N.; Stürzenhofecker, B.; Kussebi, N.; Lauber, K.; Wesselborg, S.; Löffler, D.; Horn, F.; et al. STAT3 is essential for Hodgkin lymphoma cell proliferation and is a target of tyrphostin AG17 which confers sensitization for apoptosis. Leukemia 2005, 19, 936–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Caldwell, R.G.; Wilson, J.B.; Anderson, S.J.; Longnecker, R. Epstein-Barr Virus LMP2A Drives B Cell Development and Survival in the Absence of Normal B Cell Receptor Signals. Immunity 1998, 9, 405–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Merchant, M.; Swart, R.; Katzman, R.B.; Ikeda, M.; Ikeda, A.; Longnecker, R.; Dykstra, M.L.; Pierce, S.K. The Effects of the Epstein-Barr Virus Latent Membrane Protein 2a on B Cell Function. Int. Rev. Immunol. 2001, 20, 805–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chaganti, S.; Bell, A.; Pastor, N.B.; Milner, A.E.; Drayson, M.; Gordon, J.; Rickinson, A.B. Epstein-Barr virus infection in vitro can rescue germinal center B cells with inactivated immunoglobulin genes. Blood 2005, 106, 4249–4252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Bechtel, D.; Kurth, J.; Unkel, C.; Küppers, R. Transformation of BCR-deficient germinal-center B cells by EBV supports a major role of the virus in the pathogenesis of Hodgkin and posttransplantation lymphomas. Blood 2005, 106, 4345–4350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Mancao, C.; Altmann, M.; Jungnickel, B.; Hammerschmidt, W. Rescue of “crippled” germinal center B cells from apoptosis by Epstein-Barr virus. Blood 2005, 106, 4339–4344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Levine, P.H.; Berard, C.W.; Carbone, P.P.; Waggoner, D.E.; Malan, L. Elevated antibody titers to Epstein-Barr virus in Hodgkin’s disease. Cancer 1971, 7, 416–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mueller, N.; Evans, A.; Harris, N.L.; Comstock, G.W.; Jellum, E.; Magnus, K.; Orentreich, N.; Polk, B.F.; Vogelman, J. Hodgkin’s disease and Epstein-Barr virus. Altered antibody pattern before diagnosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 1989, 320, 689–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Levin, L.I.; Chang, E.T.; Ambinder, R.F.; Lennette, E.T.; Rubertone, M.V.; Mann, R.B.; Borowitz, M.; Weir, E.G.; Abbondanzo, S.L.; Mueller, N.E. Atypical prediagnosis Epstein-Barr virus serology restricted to EBV-positive Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood 2012, 120, 3750–3755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Connelly, R.R.; Christine, B.W. A cohort study of cancer following infectious mononucleosis. Cancer Res. 1974, 34, 1172–1178. [Google Scholar]
  30. Rosdahl, N.; Larsen, S.O.; Clemmesen, J. Hodgkin’s Disease in Patients with Previous Infectious Mononucleosis: 30 Years’ Experience. BMJ 1974, 2, 253–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hjalgrim, H.; Ekström Smedby, K.; Rostgaard, K.; Molin, D.; Hamilton-Dutoit, S.; Chang, E.T.; Ralfkiaer, E.; Sundstrom, C.; Adami, H.O.; Glimelius, B.; et al. Infectious Mononucleosis, Childhood Social Environment, and Risk of Hodgkin Lymphoma. Cancer Res. 2007, 67, 2382–2388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Hjalgrim, H.; Munksgaard, L.; Melbye, M. Epstein-Barr virus and Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Ugeskr. Laeger. 2002, 164, 5924–5927. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  33. Reiman, A.; Powell, J.E.; Flavell, K.J.; Grundy, R.G.; Mann, J.R.; Parkes, S.; Redfern, D.; Young, L.S.; Murray, P.G. Seasonal differences in the onset of the EBV-positive and -negative forms of paediatric Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Br. J. Cancer 2003, 89, 1200–1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Young, L.; Yap, L.-F.; Murray, P.G. Epstein–Barr virus: More than 50 years old and still providing surprises. Nat. Cancer 2016, 16, 789–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Kushekhar, K.; Berg, A.V.D.; Nolte, I.; Hepkema, B.; Visser, L.; Diepstra, A. Genetic Associations in Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma: A Systematic Review and Insights into Susceptibility Mechanisms. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2014, 23, 2737–2747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hjalgrim, H.; Rostgaard, K.; Johnson, P.C.D.; Lake, A.; Shield, L.; Little, A.-M.; Ekstrom-Smedby, K.; Adami, H.-O.; Glimelius, B.; Hamilton-Dutoit, S.; et al. HLA-A alleles and infectious mononucleosis suggest a critical role for cytotoxic T-cell response in EBV-related Hodgkin lymphoma. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 6400–6405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Cozen, W.; Timofeeva, M.N.; Li, D.; Diepstra, A.; Hazelett, D.; Delahaye-Sourdeix, M.; Edlund, C.K.; Franke, L.; Rostgaard, K.; Berg, D.J.V.D.; et al. A meta-analysis of Hodgkin lymphoma reveals 19p13.3 TCF3 as a novel susceptibility locus. Nat. Commun. 2014, 5, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Niens, M.; Jarrett, R.; Hepkema, B.; Nolte, I.M.; Diepstra, A.; Platteel, M.; Kouprie, N.; Delury, C.P.; Gallagher, A.; Visser, L.; et al. HLA-A*02 is associated with a reduced risk and HLA-A*01 with an increased risk of developing EBV+ Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood 2007, 110, 3310–3315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Niens, M.; van den Berg, A.; Diepstra, A.; Nolte, I.M.; van der Steege, G.; Gallagher, A.; Taylor, G.M.; Jarrett, R.F.; Poppema, S.; te Meerman, G.J. The human leukocyte antigen class I region is associated with EBV-positive Hodgkin’s lymphoma: HLA-A and HLA complex group 9 are putative candidate genes. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2006, 15, 2280–2284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Glaser, S.L.; Clarke, C.A.; Chang, E.T.; Yang, J.; Gomez, S.L.; Keegan, T.H. Hodgkin lymphoma incidence in California Hispanics: Influence of nativity and tumor Epstein-Barr virus. Cancer Causes Control. 2014, 25, 709–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Glaser, S.L. Hodgkin’s disease in black populations: A review of the epidemiologic literature. Semin. Oncol. 1990, 17, 643–659. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  42. Flavell, K.J.; Biddulph, J.P.; Powell, J.E.; Parkes, S.E.; Redfern, D.; Weinreb, M.; Nelson, P.; Mann, J.R.; Young, L.S.; Murray, P.G. South Asian ethnicity and material deprivation increase the risk of Epstein-Barr virus infection in childhood Hodgkin’s disease. Br. J. Cancer 2001, 85, 350–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Glaser, S.L.; Jarrett, R.F. The epidemiology of Hodgkin’s disease. Baillieres Clin. Haematol. 1996, 9, 401–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Jarrett, R.F. Viruses and Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Ann. Oncol. 2002, 13 (Suppl. S1), 23–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Shankar, A.; Visaduraki, M.; Hayward, J.; Morland, B.; McCarthy, K.; Hewitt, M. Clinical outcome in children and adolescents with Hodgkin lymphoma after treatment with chemotherapy alone—The results of the United Kingdom HD3 national cohort trial. Eur. J. Cancer 2012, 48, 108–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Keegan, T.H.; Glaser, S.L.; Clarke, C.A.; Gulley, M.L.; Craig, F.E.; DiGiuseppe, J.A.; Dorfman, R.F.; Mann, R.B.; Ambinder, R.F. Epstein-Barr virus as a marker of survival after Hodgkin’s lymphoma: A population-based study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2005, 23, 7604–7613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Jarrett, R.; Stark, G.L.; White, J.; Angus, B.; Alexander, F.E.; Krajewski, A.S.; Freeland, J.; Taylor, G.M.; Taylor, P.R.A.; The Scotland and Newcastle Epidemiology of Hodgkin Disease Study Group. Impact of tumor Epstein-Barr virus status on presenting features and outcome in age-defined subgroups of patients with classic Hodgkin lymphoma: A population-based study. Blood 2005, 106, 2444–2451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Clarke, C.A.; Glaser, S.L.; Dorfman, R.F.; Mann, R.; DiGiuseppe, J.A.; Prehn, A.W.; Ambinder, R.F. Epstein-Barr virus and survival after Hodgkin disease in a population-based series of women. Cancer 2001, 91, 1579–1587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Stark, G.L.; Wood, K.M.; Jack, F.; Angus, B.; Proctor, S.J.; Taylor, P.R.; Northern Region Lymphoma Group. Hodgkin’s disease in the elderly: A population-based study. Br. J. Haematol. 2002, 119, 432–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Diepstra, A.; van Imhoff, G.W.; Schaapveld, M.; Karim-Kos, H.; Berg, A.V.D.; Vellenga, E.; Poppema, S. Latent Epstein-Barr Virus Infection of Tumor Cells in Classical Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Predicts Adverse Outcome in Older Adult Patients. J. Clin. Oncol. 2009, 27, 3815–3821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wang, C.; Zou, S.-P.; Chen, D.-G.; Wang, J.-S.; Zheng, Y.-B.; Chen, X.-R.; Yang, Y. Latent Epstein–Barr virus infection status and prognosis in patients with newly diagnosed Hodgkin lymphoma in Southeast China: A single-center retrospective study. Hematology 2021, 26, 675–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Proctor, S.J.; Rueffer, J.U.; Angus, B.; Breuer, K.; Flechtner, H.; Jarrett, R.; Levis, A.; Taylor, P.; Tirelli, U. Hodgkin’s disease in the elderly: Current status and future directions. Ann. Oncol. 2002, 13, 133–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Koh, Y.W.; Yoon, D.H.; Suh, C.; Huh, J. Impact of the Epstein–Barr virus positivity on Hodgkin’s lymphoma in a large cohort from a single institute in Korea. Ann. Hematol. 2012, 91, 1403–1412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Kwon, J.M.; Park, Y.H.; Kang, J.H.; Kim, K.; Ko, Y.H.; Ryoo, B.Y.; Lee, S.S.; Lee, S.I.; Koo, H.H.; Kim, W.S. The effect of Epstein–Barr virus status on clinical outcome in Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Ann. Hematol. 2006, 85, 463–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Glavina-Durdov, M.; Jakic-Razumovic, J.; Capkun, V.; Murray, P. Assessment of the prognostic impact of the Epstein–Barr virus-encoded latent membrane protein-1 expression in Hodgkin’s disease. Br. J. Cancer 2001, 84, 1227–1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Murray, P.G.; Billingham, L.J.; Hassan, H.T.; Flavell, J.R.; Nelson, P.N.; Scott, K.; Reynolds, G.; Constandinou, C.M.; Kerr, D.J.; Devey, E.C.; et al. Effect of Epstein-Barr virus infection on response to chemotherapy and survival in Hodgkin’s disease. Blood 1999, 94, 442–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Flavell, K.J.; Billingham, L.J.; Biddulph, J.P.; Gray, L.; Flavell, J.R.; Constandinou, C.M.; Young, L.S.; Murray, P.G. The effect of Epstein–Barr virus status on outcome in age- andsex-defined subgroups of patients with advanced Hodgkin’s disease. Ann. Oncol. 2003, 14, 282–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Engel, M.; Essop, M.F.; Close, P.; Hartley, P.; Pallesen, G.; Sinclair-Smith, C. Improved prognosis of Epstein-Barr virus associated childhood Hodgkin’s lymphoma: Study of 47 South African cases. J. Clin. Pathol. 2000, 53, 182–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Barros, M.H.M.; Scheliga, A.; De Matteo, E.; Minnicelli, C.; Soares, F.A.; Zalcberg, I.R.; Hassan, R. Cell cycle characteristics and Epstein–Barr virus are differentially associated with aggressive and non-aggressive subsets of Hodgkin lymphoma in pediatric patients. Leuk. Lymphoma 2010, 51, 1513–1526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Dinand, V.; Dawar, R.; Arya, L.S.; Unni, R.; Mohanty, B.; Singh, R. Hodgkin’s lymphoma in Indian children: Prevalence and significance of Epstein-Barr virus detection in Hodgkin’s and Reed-Sternberg cells. Eur. J. Cancer 2007, 43, 161–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Aktas, S.; Kargı, A.; Olgun, N.; Diniz, G.; Erbay, A.; Vergin, C.; Kargi, A. Prognostic Significance of Cell Proliferation and Apoptosis-Regulating Proteins in Epstein-Barr Virus Positive and Negative Pediatric Hodgkin Lymphoma. Lymphat. Res. Biol. 2007, 5, 175–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Chabay, P.; Lara, J.; Lorenzetti, M.; Cambra, P.; Haab, G.A.; Aversa, L.; De Matteo, E.; Preciado, M. Epstein Barr virus in relation to apoptosis markers and patients’ outcome in pediatric B-cell Non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Cancer Lett. 2011, 307, 221–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Claviez, A.; Tiemann, M.; Luüders, H.; Krams, M.; Parwaresch, R.; Schellong, G.; Dorffel, W. Impact of latent Epstein-Barr virus infection on outcome in children and adolescents with Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2005, 23, 4048–4056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Koh, Y.W.; Han, J.H.; Yoon, D.H.; Suh, C.; Huh, J. Epstein-Barr virus positivity is associated with angiogenesis in, and poorer survival of, patients receiving standard treatment for classical Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Hematol. Oncol. 2018, 36, 182–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Enblad, G.; Sandvej, K.; Sundstrom, C.; Pallesen, G.; Glimelius, B. Epstein-Barr virus distribution in Hodgkin’s disease in an unselected Swedish population. Acta Oncol. 1999, 38, 425–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Herling, M.; Rassidakis, G.Z.; Medeiros, L.J.; Vassilakopoulos, T.P.; Kliche, K.O.; Nadali, G.; Viviani, S.; Bonfante, V.; Giardini, R.; Chilosi, M.; et al. Expression of Epstein-Barr virus latent membrane protein-1 in Hodgkin and Reed-Sternberg cells of classical Hodgkin’s lymphoma: Associations with presenting features, serum interleukin 10 levels, and clinical outcome. Clin. Cancer Res. 2003, 9, 2114–2120. [Google Scholar]
  67. Axdorph, U.; Porwit-MacDonald, A.; Sjöberg, J.; Grimfors, G.; Ekman, M.; Wang, W.; Biberfeld, P.; Björkholm, M. Epstein–Barr virus expression in Hodgkin’s disease in relation to patient characteristics, serum factors and blood lymphocyte function. Br. J. Cancer 1999, 81, 1182–1187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Enblad, G.; Sandvej, K.; Lennette, E.; Sundstrom, C.; Klein, G.; Glimelius, B.; Pallesen, G. Lack of correlation between EBV serology and presence of EBV in the Hodgkin and Reed-Sternberg cells of patients with Hodgkin’s disease. Int. J. Cancer 1997, 72, 394–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Keresztes, K.; Miltenyi, Z.; Bessenyei, B.; Beck, Z.; Szollosi, Z.; Nemes, Z.; Olah, E.; Illes, A. Association between the Epstein-Barr Virus and Hodgkin’s Lymphoma in the North-Eastern Part of Hungary: Effects on Therapy and Survival. Acta Haematol. 2006, 116, 101–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Krugmann, J.; Tzankov, A.; Gschwendtner, A.; Fischhofer, M.; Greil, R.; Fend, F.; Dirnhofer, S. Longer Failure-Free Survival Interval of Epstein-Barr Virus–Associated Classical Hodgkin’s Lymphoma: A Single-Institution Study. Mod. Pathol. 2003, 16, 566–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Naresh, K.N.; Johnson, J.; Srinivas, V.; Soman, C.S.; Saikia, T.; Advani, S.H.; Badwe, R.A.; Dinshaw, K.A.; Muckaden, M.; Magrath, I.; et al. Epstein—Barr virus association in classical Hodgkin’s disease provides survival advantage to patients and correlates with higher expression of proliferation markers in Reed—Sternberg cells. Ann. Oncol. 2000, 11, 91–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Morente, M.M.; Piris, M.A.; Abraira, V.; Acevedo, A.; Aguilera, B.; Bellas, C.; Fraga, M.; Garcia-Del-Moral, R.; Gomez-Marcos, F.; Menarguez, J.; et al. Adverse clinical outcome in Hodgkin’s disease is associated with loss of retinoblastoma protein expression, high Ki67 proliferation index, and absence of Epstein-Barr virus-latent membrane protein 1 expression. Blood 1997, 90, 2429–2436. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  73. Montalban, C.; Abraira, V.; Morente, M.; Acevedo, A.; Aguilera, B.; Bellas, C.; Fraga, M.; Del Moral, R.G.; Menarguez, J.; Oliva, H.; et al. Epstein-Barr virus-latent membrane protein 1 expression has a favorable influence in the outcome of patients with Hodgkin’s Disease treated with chemotherapy. Leuk. Lymphoma 2000, 39, 563–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Trimèche, M.; Bonnet, C.; Korbi, S.; Boniver, J.; Leval, L.D. Association between Epstein-Barr virus and Hodgkin’s lymphoma in Belgium: A pathological and virological study. Leuk. Lymphoma 2007, 48, 1323–1331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Quijano, S.; Saavedra, C.; Fiorentino, S.; Orozco, O.; Bravo, M.M. Epstein-Barr virus presence in Colombian Hodgkin lymphoma cases and its relation to treatment response. Biomedica 2004, 24, 163–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Myriam, B.D.; Sonia, Z.; Hanene, S.; Teheni, L.; Mounir, T. Prognostic significance of Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) infection in Hodgkin lymphoma patients. J. Infect. Chemother. 2017, 23, 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Santisteban-Espejo, A.; Perez-Requena, J.; Atienza-Cuevas, L.; Moran-Sanchez, J.; Fernandez-Valle, M.D.C.; Bernal-Florindo, I.; Romero-Garcia, R.; Garcia-Rojo, M. Prognostic Role of the Expression of Latent-Membrane Protein 1 of Epstein–Barr Virus in Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma. Viruses 2021, 13, 2523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Elsayed, A.A.; Asano, N.; Ohshima, K.; Izutsu, K.; Kinoshita, T.; Nakamura, S. Prognostic significance of CD 20 expression and E pstein-B arr virus (EBV) association in classical H odgkin lymphoma in J apan: A clinicopathologic study. Pathol. Int. 2014, 64, 336–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Souza, E.M.; Baiocchi, O.C.; Zanichelli, M.A.; Alves, A.C.; Assis, M.G.; Eiras, D.P.; Dobo, C.; Oliveira, J.S. Impact of Epstein–Barr virus in the clinical evolution of patients with classical Hodgkin’s lymphoma in Brazil. Hematol. Oncol. 2010, 28, 137–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Cheriyalinkal Parambil, B.; Narula, G.; Dhamne, C.; Roy Moulik, N.; Shet, T.; Shridhar, E.; Gujral, S.; Shah, S.; Laskar, S.; Khanna, N.; et al. Assessment of tumor Epstein-Barr Virus status and its impact on outcomes in intermediate and high-risk childhood classic Hodgkin Lymphoma treated at a tertiary cancer center in India. Leuk. Lymphoma 2020, 61, 3217–3225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Vestlev, P.M.; Pallesen, G.; Sandvej, K.; Hamilton-Duroit, S.J.; Bendtzen, S.M. Prognosis of Hodgkin’s disease in not influenced by epstein-barry virus latent membrane protein. Int. J. Cancer 1992, 50, 670–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Armstrong, A.; Lennard, A.; Alexander, F.; Angus, B.; Proctor, S.; Onions, D.; Jarrett, R. Prognostic significance of Epstein-Barr virus association in Hodgkin’s disease. Eur. J. Cancer 1994, 30, 1045–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Levy, A.; Diomin, V.; Gopas, J.; Ariad, S.; Sacks, M.; Benharroch, D. Hodgkin’s lymphoma in the Bedouin of southern Israel: Epidemiological and clinical features. Isr. Med. Assoc. J. 2000, 2, 501–503. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  84. Vassallo, J.; Metze, K.; Traina, F.A.; de Souza, C.; Lorand-Metze, I. The prognostic relevance of apoptosis-related proteins in classical Hodgkin’s lymphomas. Leuk. Lymphoma 2003, 44, 483–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Lee, E.K.; Kim, S.Y.; Noh, K.-W.; Joo, E.H.; Zhao, B.; Kieff, E.; Kang, M.-S. Small molecule inhibition of Epstein–Barr virus nuclear antigen-1 DNA binding activity interferes with replication and persistence of the viral genome. Antivir. Res. 2014, 104, 73–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Eichenauer, D.A.; Aleman, B.M.P.; André, M.; Federico, M.; Hutchings, M.; Illidge, T.; Engert, A.; Ladetto, M.; ESMO Guidelines Committee. Hodgkin lymphoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann. Oncol. 2018, 29, iv19–iv29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Kaseb, H.; Babiker, H.M. Hodgkin Lymphoma. In StatPearls; StatPearls Publishing: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  88. Cui, X.; Snapper, C.M. Epstein Barr Virus: Development of Vaccines and Immune Cell Therapy for EBV-Associated Diseases. Front. Immunol. 2021, 12, 734471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Toner, K.; Bollard, C.M. EBV+ lymphoproliferative diseases: Opportunities for leveraging EBV as a therapeutic target. Blood 2022, 139, 983–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Heslop, H.E.; Sharma, S.; Rooney, C.M. Adoptive T-Cell Therapy for Epstein-Barr Virus–Related Lymphomas. J. Clin. Oncol. 2021, 39, 514–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Wu, R.; Sattarzadeh, A.; Rutgers, B.; Diepstra, A.; Berg, A.V.D.; Visser, L. The microenvironment of classical Hodgkin lymphoma: Heterogeneity by Epstein–Barr virus presence and location within the tumor. Blood Cancer, J. 2016, 6, e417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Barros, M.H.M.; Vera-Lozada, G.; Soares, F.A.; Niedobitek, G.; Hassan, R. Tumor microenvironment composition in pediatric classical Hodgkin lymphoma is modulated by age and Epstein-Barr virus infection. Int. J. Cancer 2011, 131, 1142–1152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Jimenez, O.; Barros, M.H.; De Matteo, E.; Lombardi, M.G.; Preciado, M.V.; Niedobitek, G.; Chabay, P. M1-like macrophage polarization prevails in young children with classic Hodgkin Lymphoma from Argentina. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Jimenez, O.; Colli, S.; Lombardi, M.G.; Preciado, M.V.; De Matteo, E.; Chabay, P. Epstein–Barr virus recruits PDL1-positive cells at the microenvironment in pediatric Hodgkin lymphoma. Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 2020, 70, 1519–1526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Satoh, T.; Wada, R.; Yajima, N.; Imaizumi, T.; Yagihashi, S. Tumor Microenvironment and RIG-I Signaling Molecules in Epstein Barr Virus-Positive and -Negative Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma of the Elderly. J. Clin. Exp. Hematop. 2014, 54, 75–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Assis, M.C.G.; Campos, A.H.F.M.; de Oliveira, J.S.R.; Soares, F.A.; Silva, J.M.K.; Silva, P.B.; Penna, A.D.; Souza, E.M.; Baiocchi, O.C.G. Increased expression of CD4+CD25+FOXP3+ regulatory T cells correlates with Epstein–Barr virus and has no impact on survival in patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma in Brazil. Med. Oncol. 2012, 29, 3614–3619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Ozturk, V.; Yikilmaz, A.S.; Kilicarslan, A.; Bakanay, S.M.; Akinci, S.; Dilek, I. The Triple Positivity for EBV, PD-1, and PD-L1 Identifies a Very High Risk Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma. Clin. Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2020, 20, e375–e381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Sueur, C.; Lupo, J.; Mas, P.; Morand, P.; Boyer, V. Difference in cytokine production and cell cycle progression induced by Epstein-Barr virus Lmp1 deletion variants in Kmh2, a Hodgkin lymphoma cell line. Virol. J. 2014, 11, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. IIncrocci, R.; McAloon, J.; Montesano, M.; Bardahl, J.; Vagvala, S.; Stone, A.; Swanson-Mungerson, M. Epstein-Barr virus LMP2A utilizes Syk and PI3K to activate NF-kappaB in B-cell lymphomas to increase MIP-1alpha production. J. Med. Virol. 2019, 91, 845–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Baumforth, K.R.; Birgersdotter, A.; Reynolds, G.M.; Wei, W.; Kapatai, G.; Flavell, J.R.; Kalk, E.; Piper, K.; Lee, S.; Machado, L.; et al. Expression of the Epstein-Barr virus-encoded Epstein-Barr virus nuclear antigen 1 in Hodgkin’s lymphoma cells mediates Up-regulation of CCL20 and the migration of regulatory T cells. Am. J. Pathol. 2008, 173, 195–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Kis, L.L.; Salamon, D.; Persson, E.K.; Nagy, N.; Scheeren, F.A.; Spits, H.; Klein, G.; Klein, E. IL-21 imposes a type II EBV gene expression on type III and type I B cells by the repression of C- and activation of LMP-1-promoter. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 107, 872–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Kis, L.L.; Takahara, M.; Nagy, N.; Klein, G.; Klein, E. Cytokine mediated induction of the major Epstein–Barr virus (EBV)-encoded transforming protein, LMP-1. Immunol. Lett. 2006, 104, 83–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Cancers 14 04297 g001 550
Figure 1. Overall survival (a) and event-free survival (b) for 166 subjects with cHL, by EBV status.
Figure 1. Overall survival (a) and event-free survival (b) for 166 subjects with cHL, by EBV status.
Cancers 14 04297 g001
Cancers 14 04297 g002 550
Figure 2. Multivariate analysis of the effect of EBV positivity on event-free survival in 166 cHL patients, adjusting for sex, age, and stage. ** marks p-values less than 0.01.
Figure 2. Multivariate analysis of the effect of EBV positivity on event-free survival in 166 cHL patients, adjusting for sex, age, and stage. ** marks p-values less than 0.01.
Cancers 14 04297 g002
Cancers 14 04297 g003 550
Figure 3. Schematic representation of differences in the cHL TME in different age groups. EBV-positive paediatric cHL has a more cytotoxic TME with predominant Th1 polarisation, overexpression of CD8, TIA1, TBET, and granzyme B, and fewer FoxP3+ regulatory T cells (Tregs) compared with EBV-negative disease. Fewer granzyme B-positive T cells, increased Tregs, and limited interferon beta production in older adult/elderly EBV-positive cHL indicate a more immunosuppressive TME.
Figure 3. Schematic representation of differences in the cHL TME in different age groups. EBV-positive paediatric cHL has a more cytotoxic TME with predominant Th1 polarisation, overexpression of CD8, TIA1, TBET, and granzyme B, and fewer FoxP3+ regulatory T cells (Tregs) compared with EBV-negative disease. Fewer granzyme B-positive T cells, increased Tregs, and limited interferon beta production in older adult/elderly EBV-positive cHL indicate a more immunosuppressive TME.
Cancers 14 04297 g003
Table
Table 1. Summary of the impact of EBV on clinical outcome from published literature. Nodular lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin lymphoma (NLPHL) cases were included in some studies. POS: positive effect of EBV on clinical outcome; NEG: negative effect of EBV on clinical outcome. “no” means no significant effect of EBV on clinical outcome. “No entry” means that the effect on clinical outcome was not studied in that group. * This was a meta-analysis that did not take age into account.
Table 1. Summary of the impact of EBV on clinical outcome from published literature. Nodular lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin lymphoma (NLPHL) cases were included in some studies. POS: positive effect of EBV on clinical outcome; NEG: negative effect of EBV on clinical outcome. “no” means no significant effect of EBV on clinical outcome. “No entry” means that the effect on clinical outcome was not studied in that group. * This was a meta-analysis that did not take age into account.
StudyPopulationNo. of PatientsNLPHL IncludedAge (Years)Effect (No Age Split)Children/AdolescentsYoung AdultsOlder Adults
Claviez (2005) [63] Multinational842yes2–20 NEG
Koh (2018) [64]South Korea135no<15 NEG
Dinand (2007) [60]India118yes<15 no
Aktas (2007) [61]Turkey63noPaediatric patients no
Chabay (2008) [62]Brazil, Argentina176yes0–18 no
Engel (2000) [58]South Africa36no≤14 POS
Keegan (2005) [46]USA922noup to 96 POSnoNEG
Barros (2010) [59]Brazil104noup to 18 POS
Koh (2012) [53]S Korea159yes4–77NEG NEG
Jarrett (2005) [47]UK437no16–74NEG noNEG
Clarke (2001) [48]USA311yes19–79 noNEG
Kwon (2006) [54]Korea56yes6–77NEG POS
Glavina-Durdov (2001) [55]Croatia100yes13–84no POS
Murray (1999) [56]UK190yes22–49 POS
Flavell (2003) [57]UK273yes≥15no POS
Stark (2002) [49]UK102yes≥60 NEG
Diepstra (2009) [50]Netherlands412no7–91no NEG
Wang (2021) [51]China134yes5–74no NEG
Enblad (1999) [65]Sweden117yes11–87NEG
Proctor (2002) [52]UK94no>60 no
Herling(2003) [66]USA, Italy, Greece303noadultsno
Axdorph (1999) [67]Sweden95no14–77no
Enblad (1997) [68]Sweden107yes6–87no
Keresztes (2006) [69]Hungary109no>61no
Krugmann (2003) [70]Austria119no14–83POS
Naresh (2000) [71] India110no4–61POS
Morente (1997) [72]Spain140yes5–83POS
Montalban (2000) [73]Spain110yesNKPOS
Trimeche (2007) [74]Belgium111no8–88NEG
Quijano (2004) [75]Columbia67noNKPOS
Myriam (2017) [76]Tunisia131no4–83NEG
Santisteban-Espejo (2021) [77]Spain88no19–82NEG
Elsayed (2014) [78]Japan389no4–89NEG
Souza (2010) [79]Brazil97no>18no
Cheriyalinkal Parambil (2020) [80]India189no≥15POS
Vestlev (1992) [81]Denmark66no12.8–60.5no
Armstrong (1994) [82]UK59yesNKno
Levy (2000) [83]Israel134yes4–50+NEG
Vassalo (2003) [84]Brazil78no>15POS
Lee (2014) [85]various*NANAno
Table
Table 2. Comparison of clinical trial patients included or not included in the EBV study. Interquartile range (IQR).
Table 2. Comparison of clinical trial patients included or not included in the EBV study. Interquartile range (IQR).
In EBV Study (n = 189)Not in EBV Study (n = 198)p-Value
Age at diagnosis 0.9
Median, IQR13.32 (10.25–14.86)13.20 (10.00–14.69)
Gender 0.9
Male119 (65.0%)116 (58.5%)
Female64 (35.0%)82 (41.5%)
Subtype 0.8
Nodular sclerosing126 (75.9%)129 (65.1%)
Mixed cellularity26 (15.6%)39 (19.6%)
Other/unknown14 (8.4%)30 (15.1%)
Stage 0.2
I23 (12.5%)31 (15.6%)
II77 (44.8%)103 (52.0%)
III38 (22.4%)32 (16.1%)
IV37 (20.2%)32 (16.1%)
Symptoms 0.9
A98 (59.0%)114 (57.5%)
B68 (41.0%)84 (42.4%)
Table
Table 3. Clinicopathological variables according to EBV status. Stage, subtype and symptoms were defined following review. Interquartile range (IQR).
Table 3. Clinicopathological variables according to EBV status. Stage, subtype and symptoms were defined following review. Interquartile range (IQR).
EBV+ (n = 62)EBV− (n = 104)p-Value
Age at diagnosis <0.001
Median, IQR10.0 (7.1–13.8)14.2 (12.2–15.3)
Gender 0.067
Male44 (71.0%)59 (56.7%)
Female18 (29.0%)45 (43.3%)
Subtype 0.005
Nodular sclerosing41 (66.1%)85 (81.7%)
Mixed cellularity17 (27.4%)9 (8.7%)
Other/unknown4 (6.5%)10 (9.6%)
Stage 0.027
I8 (12.9%)5 (4.8%)
II29 (46.8%)48 (46.2%)
III18 (29.0%)22 (21.2%)
IV7 (11.3%)29 (27.9%)
Symptoms 0.897
A37 (59.7%)61 (58.7%)
B25 (40.3%)43 (41.3%)
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nohtani, M.; Vrzalikova, K.; Ibrahim, M.; Powell, J.E.; Fennell, É.; Morgan, S.; Grundy, R.; McCarthy, K.; Dewberry, S.; Bouchal, J.; et al. Impact of Tumour Epstein–Barr Virus Status on Clinical Outcome in Patients with Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma (cHL): A Review of the Literature and Analysis of a Clinical Trial Cohort of Children with cHL. Cancers 2022, 14, 4297. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14174297

AMA Style

Nohtani M, Vrzalikova K, Ibrahim M, Powell JE, Fennell É, Morgan S, Grundy R, McCarthy K, Dewberry S, Bouchal J, et al. Impact of Tumour Epstein–Barr Virus Status on Clinical Outcome in Patients with Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma (cHL): A Review of the Literature and Analysis of a Clinical Trial Cohort of Children with cHL. Cancers. 2022; 14(17):4297. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14174297

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nohtani, Mahdi, Katerina Vrzalikova, Maha Ibrahim, Judith E. Powell, Éanna Fennell, Susan Morgan, Richard Grundy, Keith McCarthy, Sarah Dewberry, Jan Bouchal, and et al. 2022. "Impact of Tumour Epstein–Barr Virus Status on Clinical Outcome in Patients with Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma (cHL): A Review of the Literature and Analysis of a Clinical Trial Cohort of Children with cHL" Cancers 14, no. 17: 4297. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14174297

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop