Skip to content
Datasets/CGCI-HTMCP-DLBCL

HIV+ Tumor Molecular Characterization Project - Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma

MixedProject-curated
CGCIAvailable from GDC and IDC

70 diffuse large B-cell lymphomas from an HIV-enriched cohort, half Black or African American, with whole genome sequencing on 66 and named chemotherapy regimens on a quarter.

Can it answer your research question?

4 of 6 supported
  • Overall survival

    Supported

    Vital status and time are populated; median follow-up 0.9 years; 57 cases with follow-up; endpoint: overall survival.API

  • Progression or recurrence

    Limited

    progression_or_recurrence is informative for 17% of cases.API

  • Treatment response

    Supported

    disease_response is populated for 81% of cases; criteria: complete response, partial response.API

  • Which drug was given

    Supported

    therapeutic_agents is recorded for 26% of cases.API

  • Stage-adjusted modelling

    Not supported

    ajcc_pathologic_stage is informative for no case in the harmonized records.API

  • Analysis by race or ethnicity

    Supported

    Race is informative for 76% of cases.API

Judged from the repository’s own field completeness (thresholds). “Not measured” means we have not probed that field for this record, not that the data lack it.

At a glance

Every percentage is the repository’s own record of what is filled in
CasesAPI2
70
Measurement types
8
2,112 files, 37 TB
Follow-upAPI
11.3 months
for 57 of 70 cases; overall survival
Treatment responseAPI
Recorded
complete response, partial response, progressive disease

SubjectCALC

Lymphoid

As filed by the repository

Mature B-Cell LymphomasHematopoietic and reticuloendothelial systemsVarious

Who is in the cohortAPI

A usable value“Not reported” or “unknown”No value recorded
  • Sex53 male · 17 female
  • Race34 black or african american · 18 white · 1 american indian or alaska native · 15 not reported · 2 unknown
  • Ethnicity41 not hispanic or latino · 10 hispanic or latino · 15 not reported · 4 unknown
  • Vital status33 dead · 20 alive · 13 not reported · 4 unknown

Age at diagnosis

Median 46, middle half 35–54, range 2–72 years across 44 cases.

What was measured, and on how many

8 measurement types, none covering the whole cohort.

  • Whole genome sequencing66 of 70 · 94%
  • microRNA sequencing60 of 70 · 86%
  • Clinical57 of 70 · 81%
  • Bulk RNA sequencing55 of 70 · 79%
  • Copy Number Variation50 of 70 · 71%
  • Somatic Structural Variation50 of 70 · 71%
  • Whole-slide tissue images43 of 70 · 61%
  • DICOM medical imaging43 of 70 · 61%
Platform, files and data levels
AssayPlatformFilesLevels
Whole genome sequencingAPIillumina816-
microRNA sequencingAPIillumina180-
ClinicalAPI-62-
Bulk RNA sequencingAPIillumina495-
Copy Number VariationAPI-200-
Somatic Structural VariationAPI-201-
Whole-slide tissue imagesAPIillumina496-
DICOM medical imagingAPI--DICOM series
How complete all 29 clinical fields are - 8 informative for at least 80% of cases

A field counts as informative only when it holds a real value. “Not reported” blocks an analysis just as a missing field does. Fields marked 1:n can hold several records per case, so they show the share of cases with any record.

Informative - a usable valuePresent but uninformative - “not reported” or “unknown”Absent - no value recorded

Outcome

  • Vital statusAPI76%
  • Cause of deathAPI19%
  • Progression or recurrenceAPI0%
  • Last known disease statusAPI0%

Follow-up

  • Disease response at follow-up1:nAPI81%
  • ECOG performance statusAPI60%
  • Progression at follow-upAPI17%

Treatment

  • Prior treatmentAPI81%
  • Treatment type1:nAPI81%
  • Treatment given1:nAPI81%
  • Treatment outcome1:nAPI46%
  • Therapeutic agents1:nAPI26%
  • Regimen or line of therapy1:nAPI24%

Staging

  • AJCC pathologic stageAPI0%
  • AJCC clinical stageAPI0%

Diagnosis

  • Prior malignancyAPI81%
  • Tissue or organ of originAPI80%
  • Primary diagnosisAPI77%
  • Synchronous malignancyAPI77%

Pathology

  • Classification of tumorAPI81%
  • Morphology (ICD-O)API74%
  • Tumor gradeAPI0%

Demographics

  • Sex at birthAPI100%
  • RaceAPI76%
  • EthnicityAPI73%
  • Population groupAPI0%
  • Country of residenceAPI0%

Exposure

  • Tobacco smoking statusAPI56%
  • Alcohol historyAPI0%

Access

MixedSome components are open; others need approval.API

Data Access Request through dbGaP using an eRA Commons account; institutional signing official approval required

Open components
946 open-access files
Controlled components
1,166 controlled-access files
Typical turnaround
days to a few weeks after signing official approval
License
NIH Genomic Data Sharing Policy terms
Citation requirement
Cite the dataset accession and the program's publication guidelines; see the GDC publication policy.

What it is good for

Written and checked by a reviewer, not generated from metadata.

  1. 1. How does the genomic landscape of HIV-associated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma differ from that of lymphoma in immunocompetent patients?

    Needs approved accessn ≈ 66HUMAN

    Whole genome sequencing on 66 cases from an HIV-enriched population, contrastable with the many DLBCL cohorts derived from largely HIV-negative populations. Whole genome rather than exome makes structural and viral-integration analysis possible.

    Statistical note: 70 cases supports description of recurrent alterations but not genome-wide discovery at conventional significance thresholds.

    NeedsWhole genome sequencingBulk RNA sequencing
  2. 2. Does immune status shape the tumor transcriptome in lymphoma?

    Needs approved accessn ≈ 55HUMAN

    RNA sequencing on 55 cases with ECOG performance status on 71% allows transcriptional programs to be related to a clinical proxy for host status.

    Statistical note: ECOG is a crude proxy for immune competence; CD4 count would be far better and is not available in these records.

    NeedsBulk RNA sequencingClinical data
  3. 3. What are the outcomes of HIV-associated DLBCL treated with standard regimens?

    Needs approved accessn ≈ 53HUMAN

    Vital status is informative for 76% of cases, follow-up is derivable for 57 of 70 with a median of 11.3 months extending to 99.6, and 24% carry a named regimen.

    Statistical note: 53 cases with informative vital status gives wide confidence intervals; median follow-up of 11.3 months is short for lymphoma outcomes.

    NeedsClinical dataOutcome dataTreatment records

What it cannot tell you

2 blocking

Written by a reviewer against the source, not inferred from what is missing.

BlockingStatistical powerHUMAN

70 cases, with individual layers covering 50 to 66, limits all subgroup analysis.

Affects: Genome-wide discovery; Subgroup comparison; Multivariable modeling

Mitigation: Use for description and hypothesis generation; pool with other cohorts for discovery.

BlockingMissing dataHUMAN

HIV status, CD4 count and antiretroviral therapy are not structured fields, despite being the cohort's organizing rationale. Stage is absent for all cases.

Affects: HIV-stratified comparison; Stage-adjusted survival

Mitigation: Request the full phenotype file through dbGaP before planning either analysis.

MajorMissing dataHUMAN

Progression and last known disease status are empty for all cases.

Affects: Progression-free survival

Mitigation: Restrict to overall survival.

MajorAccess constraintHUMAN

1,166 of 2,112 files are controlled.

Affects: Sequence-level analysis

Mitigation: Submit a dbGaP request.

Not appropriate for

  • Comparing HIV-positive with HIV-negative lymphoma within the cohort. - HIV status is not a structured variable in these records.HUMAN
  • Genome-wide significance testing. - 66 whole genomes cannot support it.HUMAN

Who has used it

Articles that analyzed these data, counted separately from articles that only cited the paper. Only the first counts as reuse.

Analyzed the dataCALC2
0
accession in the methods section
Declared using it
0
named in a data availability statement
Cited the paper
-
attention to the publication, not reuse of the data
Against expectation
Somewhat below
about 2 articles expected; index -1.35

Against comparable datasets

No article has analyzed these data. About 2 would be expected. The expectation comes from a model of size, age, breadth and access tier.

  • Analyzed it0
  • Expected~2
More articles are listed below than the count
The headline count is deliberately narrow: one section of one accession (METHODS:"phs000529"), so every dataset in the corpus is counted the same way and the numbers can be compared. The 1 articles listed below were retrieved and graded one at a time, and an article counts as having analyzed the data wherever the accession sits in the analysis - methods, results, tables, figures or supplement - under any of this dataset’s accessions. Read the list as the evidence about these articles, and the count as the number that is comparable across datasets.
Reuse assessment
  • Reuse is within the expected range for comparable datasets (index -1.35).

Compared against 132 datasets in this corpus with a citable accession and sufficient metadata. See Methods for the model.

Possible original publication, unverified

No repository or reviewer names this dataset’s marker paper, so this is the pipeline’s own guess: the earliest heavily cited article that analysed the accession and names it in full text. Nothing is counted from it - not the citation figure above, not the funding attribution - and it is queued for review rather than presented as fact.

Articles that analyzed the data

Examples, not the full list. 2 articles matching this dataset's accession search were retrieved and graded individually; these are the strongest of those.

Deep-review sample: author overlap and funding were checked only for the 1 articles listed here, not for every article examined. Of the 1 that analyzed the data, author overlap with the generating team could not be checked for any of them, and none could be checked for NCI funding of their own. These are sample counts, not population estimates.

Community examples

Share your example

Analyses someone ran on these data end to end, each with a receipt recording when it ran, against which packages and for how long.

intermediate

Is performance status associated with response to chemoradiation, and which agents were actually given?

Treatment response, after checking the response field is real

CD2S workbooks · ran 21 Sept 2026
pythonabout a minuteexecuted
Required inputs
  • Open GDC clinical records for CGCI-HTMCP-CC
  • scipy, pandas
Expected outputs
  • Separation of genuine response categories from disease-status codes
  • Per-case responder/progressor labels under a stated rule
  • Mann-Whitney comparison of ECOG between response groups
  • Agent frequency table
  • A two-panel chart of response composition and ECOG by response group
Steps
  1. Facet the two response-bearing fields and classify their values
  2. Collapse one-to-many treatment records to one label per case
  3. Compare performance status between response groups
  4. Tabulate the therapeutic agents actually recorded

Start here

Starter code generated from this record’s own identifiers, then the access steps.

Get the data in code

GDC: list open files and download thempython

Open-access files need no account. Controlled files need an approved dbGaP request and a token passed to gdc-client.

import json, requests

PROJECT = "CGCI-HTMCP-DLBCL"
filters = {"op": "and", "content": [
    {"op": "in", "content": {"field": "cases.project.project_id", "value": [PROJECT]}},
    {"op": "in", "content": {"field": "access", "value": ["open"]}},
]}
params = {"filters": json.dumps(filters),
          "fields": "file_id,file_name,data_category,data_type,file_size",
          "size": "10000", "format": "JSON"}
files = requests.get("https://api.gdc.cancer.gov/files", params=params, timeout=60).json()["data"]["hits"]
print(len(files), "open files")

# Write a manifest and fetch with the GDC client (https://gdc.cancer.gov/access-data/gdc-data-transfer-tool)
with open("manifest.txt", "w") as fh:
    fh.write("id\n" + "\n".join(f["file_id"] for f in files))
# $ gdc-client download -m manifest.txt
GDC: clinical table for every casepython
import json, requests

filters = {"op": "in", "content": {"field": "project.project_id", "value": ["CGCI-HTMCP-DLBCL"]}}
params = {"filters": json.dumps(filters), "size": "5000", "format": "TSV",
          "fields": ",".join([
              "submitter_id", "demographic.vital_status", "demographic.days_to_death",
              "diagnoses.days_to_last_follow_up", "diagnoses.ajcc_pathologic_stage",
              "diagnoses.treatments.treatment_type", "diagnoses.treatments.treatment_outcome"])}
tsv = requests.get("https://api.gdc.cancer.gov/cases", params=params, timeout=60).text
open("CGCI-HTMCP-DLBCL_clinical.tsv", "w").write(tsv)
IDC: pull the DICOM collection with idc-indexpython

pip install idc-index. Images are public; the package uses s5cmd under the hood.

from idc_index import IDCClient

COLLECTION = "cgci_htmcp_dlbcl"
client = IDCClient()

series = client.index[client.index["collection_id"] == COLLECTION]   # one row per DICOM series
print(len(series), "series,", series["PatientID"].nunique(), "patients,",
      round(series["series_size_MB"].sum() / 1024, 1), "GB")
print(series["Modality"].value_counts().to_dict())

# Everything above is an index lookup and costs nothing. Uncomment to pull the pixels;
# the client refuses up front if the disk cannot hold them.
# client.download_from_selection(collection_id=COLLECTION, downloadDir="./cgci_htmcp_dlbcl")
This page as data: limitations firstbash
curl -s https://cd2s.vercel.app/data/datasets/gdc-cgci-htmcp-dlbcl.json | python3 -c '
import json, sys
r = json.load(sys.stdin)
for l in r["limitations"]:
    print(l["severity"].upper(), "-", l["statement"][:120])
print("survival endpoint:", r["longitudinal"]["has_survival_endpoint"], "| treatment response:", r["longitudinal"]["has_treatment_response"])'

Access steps

  1. 1
    Scope with the 946 open-access filesFor people1 hour
    https://portal.gdc.cancer.gov/projects/CGCI-HTMCP-DLBCL
  2. 2
    Request controlled access, naming HIV-related phenotype variablesFor peopledays to a few weeks

    Requires: eRA Commons account, institutional signing official approval

    https://gdc.cancer.gov/access-data/obtaining-access-controlled-data
  3. 3
    Query the project from code, with no credentialsFor agents

    The file index is public even where files are not, so an agent can size the cohort before anyone requests access.

    curl -s 'https://api.gdc.cancer.gov/files' --get \
      --data-urlencode 'filters={"op":"in","content":{"field":"cases.project.project_id","value":["CGCI-HTMCP-DLBCL"]}}' \
      --data-urlencode 'fields=file_id,file_name,data_type' \
      --data-urlencode 'size=10000' --data-urlencode 'format=TSV'
    https://docs.gdc.cancer.gov/API/Users_Guide/Getting_Started/

    Generated from repository policy. Check the linked policy before downloading.

  4. 4
    Pass the token when the agent needs controlled filesFor agents

    Without a token, an API query may return only the open subset. Compare returned counts with the record before treating them as the whole cohort.

    Requires: GDC authentication token

    curl -H "X-Auth-Token: $GDC_TOKEN" https://api.gdc.cancer.gov/data/<file_id>
    https://docs.gdc.cancer.gov/API/Users_Guide/Getting_Started/

    Generated from repository policy. Check the linked policy before downloading.

Provenance

All of it, and more, is in this record’s JSON.

Identifiers

Versions and verification

Released
1 Jan 2025
Metadata retrieved
18 Sept 2026
Review status
Project-curatedCD2S project curation on 18 Sept 2026
Data generation funding
Funded data generation
Open questions from review
  • HIV status and CD4 count are not structured fields; confirm availability through dbGaP.

For softwarerecord JSON