ArticleESMO open2025
Laboratory Prognostic Index (LAB-PI) in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a single blood analysis predicts outcomes as good as IPI, NCCN-IPI, and GELTAMO-IPI.
Article in ESMO open, 2025. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany prognostic variables have been described in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and combined in prognostic scores, which are not usually fully objective and may be complex to apply. With the aim of designing and validating a simple, inexpensive, objective, and reproducible prognostic tool in DLBCL, the Laboratory Prognostic Index (LAB-PI) was developed. PATIENTS AND
methodsLaboratory parameters routinely evaluated at DLBCL diagnosis were analysed before treatment initiation in a DLBCL cohort (n = 221). The variables associated with event-free survival (EFS) were combined into the new score and graded according to their prognostic impact in multivariate analysis. Patients were clustered according to their risk. The LAB-PI was validated in an independent cohort (n = 885) and compared with other DLBCL scores.
resultsThe LAB-PI included three laboratory variables routinely assessed at DLBCL diagnosis: elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) (1 point), anaemia (1 point), and high β2-microglobulin (B2M) up to two times the upper limit of normal (ULN) (1 point) or greater than two times the ULN (2 points). Cases were clustered into four groups according to their prognosis in the validation cohort: low risk (0 points, 5-year EFS 87%), low-intermediate risk (1-2 points, 5-year EFS 69%), high-intermediate risk (3 points, 5-year EFS 55%), and high risk (4 points, 5-year EFS 37%). The LAB-PI was comparable with the International Prognostic Index (IPI), National Cancer Comprehensive Network (NCCN)-IPI, and Grupo Español de Linfomas/Trasplante de Médula ósea (GELTAMO)-IPI in predicting prognosis and remained useful in subanalysis according to age and stage.
conclusionThe LAB-PI predicts outcome in newly diagnosed DLBCL patients by a single blood assessment including LDH, haemoglobin, and B2M.
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.