Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37833260›Full record

ArticleBlood cancer journal2023

Prognostic indices in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a population-based comparison and validation study of multiple models.

Jelena Jelicic, Karen Juul-Jensen, Zoran Bukumiric, Michael Roost Clausen, Ahmed Ludvigsen Al-Mashhadi, Robert Schou Pedersen, Christian Bjørn Poulsen, Peter Brown, Tarec Christoffer El-Galaly, Thomas Stauffer Larsen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Blood cancer journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Jelena JelicicDepartment of Hematology, Vejle Hospital, Sygehus Lillebaelt, Vejle, Denmark.
Karen Juul-JensenDepartment of Hematology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Zoran BukumiricInstitute for Medical Statistics and Informatics, University of Belgrade, Faculty of Medicine, Belgrade, Serbia.
Michael Roost ClausenDepartment of Hematology, Vejle Hospital, Sygehus Lillebaelt, Vejle, Denmark.
Ahmed Ludvigsen Al-MashhadiDepartment of Hematology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8739-0421
Robert Schou PedersenDepartment of Hematology, Regional Hospital Gødstrup, Herning, Denmark.
Christian Bjørn PoulsenDepartment of Hematology, Zealand University Hospital, Roskilde, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9785-1378
Peter BrownDepartment of Hematology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6522-4086
Tarec Christoffer El-GalalyDepartment of Hematology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Thomas Stauffer LarsenDepartment of Hematology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. Thomas.Stauffer.Larsen@rsyd.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8418-6708

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Currently, the International Prognostic Index (IPI) is the most used and reported model for prognostication in patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). IPI-like variations have been proposed, but only a few have been validated in different populations (e.g., revised IPI (R-IPI), National Comprehensive Cancer Network IPI (NCCN-IPI)). We aimed to validate and compare different IPI-like variations to identify the model with the highest predictive accuracy for survival in newly diagnosed DLBCL patients. We included 5126 DLBCL patients treated with immunochemotherapy with available data required by 13 different prognostic models. All models could predict survival, but NCCN-IPI consistently provided high levels of accuracy. Moreover, we found similar 5-year overall survivals in the high-risk group (33.4%) compared to the original validation study of NCCN-IPI. Additionally, only one model incorporating albumin performed similarly well but did not outperform NCCN-IPI regarding discrimination (c-index 0.693). Poor fit, discrimination, and calibration were observed in models with only three risk groups and without age as a risk factor. In this extensive retrospective registry-based study comparing 13 prognostic models, we suggest that NCCN-IPI should be reported as the reference model along with IPI in newly diagnosed DLBCL patients until more accurate validated prognostic models for DLBCL become available.

Indexed as

Lymphoma, Large B-Cell, DiffuseAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsHumansPrognosisRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsRituximabRituximab

Identifiers

PMID37833260
PMCPMC10575851

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.