ArticleChinese medical journal2016
Decreased Prognostic Value of International Prognostic Score in Chinese Advanced Hodgkin Lymphoma Patients Treated in the Contemporary Era.
Article in Chinese medical journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prognostic Significance of the Systemic Inflammation Response Index (SIRI) in Patients with Hodgkin Lymphoma.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Prognostic Factors for Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Advanced-stage Hodgkin Lymphoma: A Nationwide Retrospective Study.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe International Prognostic Score (IPS) was developed based on the data of Western advanced Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) patients treated before 1992. Only a few studies ever evaluated the application value of IPS in Chinese population or in patients treated in the contemporary era whose outcomes has improved significantly than before.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective study involving 208 previously untreated Chinese advanced HL patients, who were admitted to Cancer Hospital Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences from January 1, 1999 to April 30, 2015 and received uniform first-line treatment. The prognostic value of both IPS and the seven IPS factors for freedom-from progression (FFP) and overall survival (OS) was assessed in this population. The statistical methods included Kaplan-Meier methodology, log-rank testing, and Cox proportional hazard regression analysis.
resultsWith a median follow-up time of 79 months (range, 15-210 months), the 5-year FFP and OS were 78.8% and 86.0% respectively, which improved obviously compared with the original IPS study. The IPS remained prognostic for both FFP (P = 0.041) and OS (P = 0.013), but the range narrowed obviously, with 5-year FFP ranging from 87.2% to 61.5%, 5-year OS ranging from 94.1% to 69.2%, and the separation of survival curves was not as good as before. Only two of the seven IPS factors showed a significant independent prognostic value in the multivariate analysis: Stage IV (for FFP, hazard ratio [HR] = 2.219, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.148-3.948, P = 0.016; for OS, HR = 2.491, 95% CI: 1.159-5.355, P = 0.019) and hemoglobin <105 g/L (for FFP, HR = 2.136, 95% CI: 1.123-4.060, P = 0.021; for OS, HR = 2.345, 95% CI: 1.099-5.042, P = 0.028). A simple prognostic score calculated by adding one point each for any of the two factors was prognostic both for FFP (P < 0.001) and OS (P < 0.001) with the survival curves separating very well, but the range still narrowed.
conclusionsThe IPS has decreased the prognostic value in Chinese advanced HL patients treated in the contemporary era. More prognostic factors are needed to supplement this original scoring system so as to identify different risk populations more accurately.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.