4.2 Article

Low absolute lymphocyte count is a poor prognostic marker in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and suggests patients' survival benefit from rituximab

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
卷 81, 期 6, 页码 448-453

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0609.2008.01129.x

关键词

absolute lymphocyte count; diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; prognostic factor; rituximab

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To evaluate the prognostic value of absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) at diagnosis in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). In a large cohort of patients with DLBCL treated with CHOP (n = 119) or RCHOP (n = 102) in our institution, we evaluated the prognostic value of ALC at diagnosis with regards to treatment response, overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Use of rituximab, all International Prognostic Index (IPI) determinants, beta 2microglobulin level, presence of B symptoms or bulky disease, and ALC were evaluated. Low ALC (< 1.0 x 10(9)/L) was associated with advanced stage, performance status >= 2, elevated lactate dehydrogenase, number of extranodal involvement >= 2, B symptoms, elevated beta 2microglobulin and higher IPI risk group. Low ALC was associated with lower CR rate by univariate analysis (odds ratio = 3.29, P = 0.024) but not by multivariate analysis. By univariate analysis using Cox proportional hazard model, low ALC was associated with shorter OS [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.89, P < 0.001] and PFS (HR = 2.91, P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed that low ALC was associated with shorter OS (HR = 2.51, P = 0.003) and PFS (HR = 2.72, P < 0.001), independent of above-mentioned parameters. Subclass analyses revealed that the use of rituximab improves OS in patients with low ALC (HR = 0.42, P = 0.05) but not in those with high ALC (HR = 0.83, P = 0.71). This observation was most obvious in patients with higher IPI score. Low ALC is a poor prognostic marker in patients with DLBCL and suggests patients' survival benefit from rituximab.

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

4.2
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