ArticleAnnals of hematology2025
An international prognostic index to predict the early chemoimmunotherapy failure of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.
Article in Annals of hematology, 2025. 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.
- Baseline Lactate Dehydrogenase Predicts Early Treatment Failure in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Treated With R-CHOP: A Real-World Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine research · 2026Article
- Molecular international prognostic index prognostic model in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.Discover oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundApproximately 30-40% of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients will develop relapse/refractory disease, who may benefit from novel therapies, such as CAR-T cell therapy. Thus, accurate identification of individuals at high risk of early chemoimmunotherapy failure (ECF) is crucial. Methods. Two prognostic models were developed to predict the ECF of DLBCL using clinical variables, namely the ECF-IPI-basic model (n = 1200) and the ECF-IPI-advance model (n = 699), respectively. 8 variables included age, gender, Ann Arbor stage, Hans classification, MYC and BCL2 double expression (DE), number of extranodal involvement sites, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) were considered to construct the basic model. The advanced model incorporated four additional biomarkers, interleukin-8 (IL-8), interleukin-2 receptor (IL-2R), β2-microglobulin (β2-MG), and D-dimer, totaling 12 predictive variables. Results. The ECF-IPI-basic model includes 5 variables, which was constructed with the formula of Age + Ann Arbor stage + DE (MYC and BCL2 double expression) + ECOG + LDH (lactate dehydrogenase). The ECF-IPI-advance model includes 7 variables, specifically, it was constructed with the formula of Age × Sex + Ann Arbor stage + DE + ECOG + LDH + IL-2R. Compared with the IPI score, greater discriminatory capacity was observed in both of the ECF-IPI-basic model (AUC, 0.768 vs. 0.701, p < 0.001) and the ECF-IPI-advance model (AUC, 0.824 vs. 0.724, p < 0.001) in identifying ECF. Conclusions. Overall, this study provides two potent ECF-IPI models that can effectively distinguish the patients with ECF from DLBCL, contributing to improve the prognosis of DLBCL.
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.