Cargando…

IPI、NCCN-IPI及年龄调整的IPI评分系统在弥漫大B细胞淋巴瘤患者中的预后价值比较

OBJECTIVE: To explore the prognostic value of the international prognostic index (IPI), the national comprehensive cancer network IPI (NCCN-IPI) and the age-adjusted IPI (aa-IPI) in diffuse large B cell lymphoma. METHODS: A total of 311 patients with de novo diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) dia...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Editorial office of Chinese Journal of Hematology 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7342249/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30369184
http://dx.doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-2727.2018.09.007
_version_ 1783555419106443264
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To explore the prognostic value of the international prognostic index (IPI), the national comprehensive cancer network IPI (NCCN-IPI) and the age-adjusted IPI (aa-IPI) in diffuse large B cell lymphoma. METHODS: A total of 311 patients with de novo diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) diagnosed from 2003 to 2012 in Nanfang hospital were included. All patients were divided into CHOP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and prednisone) and R-CHOP (rituximab, CHOP) groups. Survival analysis was compared among IPI, NCCN-IPI and aa-IPI models. Discrimination of three different prognostic models was assessed using the Harrell's C statistic. RESULTS: A total of 311 patients were analyzed. Among them, 128 patients were treated with CHOP regimen and other 183 patients were treated with R-CHOP regimen. In CHOP groups, both NCCN-IPI (5-year OS: 59.7% vs 26.8%, P<0.001) and aa-IPI (5-year OS: 71.0% vs 25.0%, P<0.001) showed better risk stratification for low-intermediate and high-intermediate group than the IPI (5-year OS: 47.6% vs 36.6%, P=0.003). However, in the patients treated with R-CHOP, NCCN-IPI showed better risk stratification in low, low-intermediate, high-intermediate groups (5-year OS: 96.0% vs 83.0% vs 66.5%, P=0.009). According to the Harrell's C statistic, C-index of IPI, NCCN-IPI and aa-IPI for overall survival (OS) were 0.546, 0.667, 0.698 in CHOP group and 0.611,0.654, 0.695 in R-CHOP group respectively. In patients younger than 60 years old, C-index of IPI, NCCN-IPI and aa-IPI for OS were 0.534, 0.675, 0.698 in CHOP group and 0.584, 0.648, 0.695 in R-CHOP respectively. CONCLUSION: The NCCN-IPI is more powerful than IPI and aa-IPI in DLBCL patients receiving R-CHOP. aa-IPI is a preferable model in predicting prognosis than IPI and NCCN-IPI in anthracycline-based chemotherapy without rituximab.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7342249
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Editorial office of Chinese Journal of Hematology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73422492020-07-16 IPI、NCCN-IPI及年龄调整的IPI评分系统在弥漫大B细胞淋巴瘤患者中的预后价值比较 Zhonghua Xue Ye Xue Za Zhi 论著 OBJECTIVE: To explore the prognostic value of the international prognostic index (IPI), the national comprehensive cancer network IPI (NCCN-IPI) and the age-adjusted IPI (aa-IPI) in diffuse large B cell lymphoma. METHODS: A total of 311 patients with de novo diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) diagnosed from 2003 to 2012 in Nanfang hospital were included. All patients were divided into CHOP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and prednisone) and R-CHOP (rituximab, CHOP) groups. Survival analysis was compared among IPI, NCCN-IPI and aa-IPI models. Discrimination of three different prognostic models was assessed using the Harrell's C statistic. RESULTS: A total of 311 patients were analyzed. Among them, 128 patients were treated with CHOP regimen and other 183 patients were treated with R-CHOP regimen. In CHOP groups, both NCCN-IPI (5-year OS: 59.7% vs 26.8%, P<0.001) and aa-IPI (5-year OS: 71.0% vs 25.0%, P<0.001) showed better risk stratification for low-intermediate and high-intermediate group than the IPI (5-year OS: 47.6% vs 36.6%, P=0.003). However, in the patients treated with R-CHOP, NCCN-IPI showed better risk stratification in low, low-intermediate, high-intermediate groups (5-year OS: 96.0% vs 83.0% vs 66.5%, P=0.009). According to the Harrell's C statistic, C-index of IPI, NCCN-IPI and aa-IPI for overall survival (OS) were 0.546, 0.667, 0.698 in CHOP group and 0.611,0.654, 0.695 in R-CHOP group respectively. In patients younger than 60 years old, C-index of IPI, NCCN-IPI and aa-IPI for OS were 0.534, 0.675, 0.698 in CHOP group and 0.584, 0.648, 0.695 in R-CHOP respectively. CONCLUSION: The NCCN-IPI is more powerful than IPI and aa-IPI in DLBCL patients receiving R-CHOP. aa-IPI is a preferable model in predicting prognosis than IPI and NCCN-IPI in anthracycline-based chemotherapy without rituximab. Editorial office of Chinese Journal of Hematology 2018-09 /pmc/articles/PMC7342249/ /pubmed/30369184 http://dx.doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-2727.2018.09.007 Text en 2018年版权归中华医学会所有 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License (CC-BY-NC). The Copyright own by Publisher. Without authorization, shall not reprint, except this publication article, shall not use this publication format design. Unless otherwise stated, all articles published in this journal do not represent the views of the Chinese Medical Association or the editorial board of this journal.
spellingShingle 论著
IPI、NCCN-IPI及年龄调整的IPI评分系统在弥漫大B细胞淋巴瘤患者中的预后价值比较
title IPI、NCCN-IPI及年龄调整的IPI评分系统在弥漫大B细胞淋巴瘤患者中的预后价值比较
title_full IPI、NCCN-IPI及年龄调整的IPI评分系统在弥漫大B细胞淋巴瘤患者中的预后价值比较
title_fullStr IPI、NCCN-IPI及年龄调整的IPI评分系统在弥漫大B细胞淋巴瘤患者中的预后价值比较
title_full_unstemmed IPI、NCCN-IPI及年龄调整的IPI评分系统在弥漫大B细胞淋巴瘤患者中的预后价值比较
title_short IPI、NCCN-IPI及年龄调整的IPI评分系统在弥漫大B细胞淋巴瘤患者中的预后价值比较
title_sort ipi、nccn-ipi及年龄调整的ipi评分系统在弥漫大b细胞淋巴瘤患者中的预后价值比较
topic 论著
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7342249/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30369184
http://dx.doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-2727.2018.09.007
work_keys_str_mv AT ipinccnipijíniánlíngdiàozhěngdeipipíngfēnxìtǒngzàimímàndàbxìbāolínbāliúhuànzhězhōngdeyùhòujiàzhíbǐjiào
AT ipinccnipijíniánlíngdiàozhěngdeipipíngfēnxìtǒngzàimímàndàbxìbāolínbāliúhuànzhězhōngdeyùhòujiàzhíbǐjiào
AT ipinccnipijíniánlíngdiàozhěngdeipipíngfēnxìtǒngzàimímàndàbxìbāolínbāliúhuànzhězhōngdeyùhòujiàzhíbǐjiào
AT ipinccnipijíniánlíngdiàozhěngdeipipíngfēnxìtǒngzàimímàndàbxìbāolínbāliúhuànzhězhōngdeyùhòujiàzhíbǐjiào
AT ipinccnipijíniánlíngdiàozhěngdeipipíngfēnxìtǒngzàimímàndàbxìbāolínbāliúhuànzhězhōngdeyùhòujiàzhíbǐjiào
AT ipinccnipijíniánlíngdiàozhěngdeipipíngfēnxìtǒngzàimímàndàbxìbāolínbāliúhuànzhězhōngdeyùhòujiàzhíbǐjiào
AT ipinccnipijíniánlíngdiàozhěngdeipipíngfēnxìtǒngzàimímàndàbxìbāolínbāliúhuànzhězhōngdeyùhòujiàzhíbǐjiào
AT ipinccnipijíniánlíngdiàozhěngdeipipíngfēnxìtǒngzàimímàndàbxìbāolínbāliúhuànzhězhōngdeyùhòujiàzhíbǐjiào