ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021
Risk Stratification for Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma by Integrating Interim Evaluation and International Prognostic Index: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can we obtain prognostic information from healthy tissue uptake and volume in baselineEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- The future of immunotherapy for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.International journal of cancer · 2025Review
- Challenges identifying DLBCL patients with poor outcomes to upfront chemoimmunotherapy and its impact on frontline clinical trials.Leukemia & lymphoma · 2024Review
- High density of FOXP3 predicts better prognosis in germinal and non-germinal centre diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.International journal of experimental pathology · 2023Article
- Autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation as a part of a sequential multi-phase therapeutic approach (R-COPADM/CYVE/ASCT) as first-line treatment of high-grade B-cell lymphoma: results of a retrospective study with long-term follow-up.Bone marrow transplantation · 2023Article
- Whole-genome informed circulating tumor DNA analysis by multiplex digital PCR for disease monitoring in B-cell lymphomas: a proof-of-concept study.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The baseline International Prognostic Index (IPI) is not sufficient for the initial risk stratification of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) treated with R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone). The aims of this study were to evaluate the prognostic relevance of early risk stratification in DLBCL and develop a new stratification system that combines an interim evaluation and IPI. This multicenter retrospective study enrolled 314 newly diagnosed DLBCL patients with baseline and interim evaluations. All patients were treated with R-CHOP or R-CHOP-like regimens as the first-line therapy. Survival differences were evaluated for different risk stratification systems including the IPI, interim evaluation, and the combined system. When stratified by IPI, the high-intermediate and high-risk groups presented overlapping survival curves with no significant differences, and the high-risk group still had >50% of 3-year overall survival (OS). The interim evaluation can also stratify patients into three groups, as 3-year OS and progression-free survival (PFS) rates in patients with stable disease (SD) and progressive disease (PD) were not significantly different. The SD and PD patients had significantly lower 3-year OS and PFS rates than complete remission and partial response patients, but the percentage of these patients was only ~10%. The IPI and interim evaluation combined risk stratification system separated the patients into low-, intermediate-, high-, and very high-risk groups. The 3-year OS rates were 96.4%, 86.7%, 46.4%, and 40%, while the 3-year PFS rates were 87.1%, 71.5%, 42.5%, and 7.2%. The OS comparison between the high-risk group and very high-risk group was marginally significant, and OS and PFS comparisons between any other two groups were significantly different. This combined risk stratification system could be a useful tool for the prognostic prediction of DLBCL patients.
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.