ArticleCancer cell international2022
The prognostic value of IPI in patients with primary breast lymphoma, a multicenter retrospective study.
Article in Cancer cell international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Serum Mac2-binding protein glycosylated isomer (M2BPGi) as a prognostic biomarker in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: iCAFs-derived M2BPGi drives tumor invasion.Journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDue to the rarity of PBL and the lack of large-scale studies, the prognostic value of IPI in PBL was controversial. Especially in the rituximab era, the ability of IPI to stratify prognosis in patients receiving immunochemotherapy was severely reduced. Then revised IPI (R-IPI) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network IPI (NCCN-IPI) were introduced. The present study aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of IPI and the other IPIs in patients with PBL in a Chinese population.
methodsWe performed a multicenter retrospective study of 71 patients with PBL from 3 institutions in China. The Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank tests were used for the survival analysis. Cox regression analysis was performed to evaluate the prognostic factors. Subgroup analysis was performed to assess the prognostic significance of IPI scores, R-IPI scores, and NCCN-IPI scores.
resultsThe median follow-up was 4.7 years (0.7-21.8 years). The 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 90.2% and 96.3%. In the multivariate analysis, only IPI scores and radiotherapy were significantly associated with OS and PFS (P < 0.05). Applying the R-IPI in our patient cohort indicates a significant difference in PFS between the two groups of R-IPI (P = 0.034) but not for OS (P = 0.072). And the NCCN-IPI was prognostic for OS (P = 0.025) but not for PFS (P = 0.066). Subgroup analyses of IPI showed that survival analysis of IPI scores for the PFS and OS of patients using rituximab were not significantly different (P > 0.05).
conclusionsOur study confirms the prognostic value of IPI in patients with PBL, but the predictive value of IPI proved to be relatively low with the addition of the rituximab. The R-IPI and NCCN-IPI can accurately assess the high and low-risk groups of PBL patients but were insufficient to evaluate the intermediate risk group.
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.