4.5 Article

The Enhanced International Prognostic Index for Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL SCIENCES
卷 353, 期 5, 页码 459-465

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjms.2017.02.002

关键词

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; International Prognostic Index; Revised International Prognostic Index; National Comprehensive Cancer Network International Prognostic Index; Prognosis

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China, China [81270599]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To explore the prognostic value of the enhanced International Prognostic Index (NCCN-IPI) for Asian patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) treated in the rituximab era. Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of 176 patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL. The estimated overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of the different risk groups were discriminated by the International Prognostic Index (IPI), the revised International Prognostic Index (R-IPI) and the NCCN-IPI. Results: With a median follow-up of 18 months, at 3 years, the OS was 73% and the PFS was 65%. The 3-year OS for the 4 NCCN-IPI risk groups were 91% versus 80% versus 57% versus 45% (P < 0.001); the 3-year PFS were 7 7 % versus 72% versus 56% versus 26% (P < 0.001). The 3-year OS of the 4 risk groups discriminated by the IPI ranged from 85-55% (P < 0.001); the 3-year PFS ranged from 81-41% (P < 0.001). The 3-year OS of the 3 distinct prognostic groups by the R-IPI ranged from 86-51 % (P < 0.001); the 3-year PFS ranged from 86-47% (P < 0.001). The 3-year OS and PFS of the high-risk group according to the NCCN-IPI were lower than the IPI and R-IPI. Using the NCCN-IPI, the outcomes among the risk groups spanned a large range, and the survival of the high-risk group was significantly different from the high-intermediate risk group. Conclusions: The NCCN-IPI is a clinically useful prognostic index for patients with DLBCL treated in the rituximab era, especially for high-risk patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据