ArticleEuropean journal of haematology2020
Evaluation of the MD Anderson tumor score for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in the rituximab era.
Article in European journal of haematology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The prognostic value of bone marrow retention index and bone marrow-to-liver ratio of baseline 18F-FDG PET/CT in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.European radiology · 2024Article
- Development and validation of a novel risk stratification model and a survival rate calculator for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in the rituximab era: a multi-institutional cohort study.Annals of hematology · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the MD Anderson tumor score for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in the rituximab era.European journal of haematology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
31 authors at 19 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesDiffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is an aggressive heterogeneous lymphoma with standard treatment. However, 30%-40% of patients still fail, so we should know which patients are candidates for alternative therapies. IPI is the main prognostic score but, in the rituximab era, it cannot identify a very high-risk (HR) subset. The MD Anderson Cancer Center reported a score in the prerituximab era exclusively considering tumor-related variables: Tumor Score (TS). We aim to validate TS in the rituximab era and to analyze its current potential role.
methodsFrom GELTAMO DLBCL registry, we selected those patients homogeneously treated with R-CHOP (n = 1327).
resultsFive-years PFS and OS were 62% and 74%. All variables retained an independent prognostic role in the revised TS (R-TS), identifying four different risk groups, with 5-years PFS of 86%, 71%, 50%, and very HR (28%). With a further categorization of three variables of the original TS (Ann Arbor Stage, LDH and B2M), we generated a new index that allowed an improvement in HR assessment.
conclusions(a) All variables of the original TS retain an independent prognostic role, and R-TS remains predictive in the rituximab era; (b) R-TS and additional categorization of LDH, B2M, and AA stage (enhanced TS) increased the ability to identify HR subsets.
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.