The revised International Prognostic Index (R-IPI) is a better predictor of outcome than the standard IPI for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with R-CHOP

1.1kCitations
Citations of this article
544Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a heterogeneous entity, with patients exhibiting a wide range of outcomes. The addition of rituximab to CHOP chemotherapy (R-CHOP)has led to a marked improvement in survival and has called into question the significance of previously recognized prognostic markers. Since randomized controlled trials of R-CHOP in DLBCL have included select subgroups of patients, the utility of the International Prognostic Index (IPI) has not been reassessed. We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with DLBCL treated with R-CHOP in the province of British Columbia to assess the value of the IPI in the era of immunochemotherapy. The IPI remains predictive, but it identifies only 2 risk groups. Redistribution of the IPI factors into a revised IPI (R-IPI) provides a more clinically useful prediction of outcome. The R-IPI identifies 3 distinct prognostic groups with a very good (4-year progression-free survival [PFS] 94%, overall survival [OS] 94%), good (4-year PFS 80%, OS 79%), and poor (4-year PFS 53%, OS 55%) outcome, respectively (P < .001). The IPI (or R-IPI) no longer identifies a risk group with less than a 50% chance of survival. In the era of R-CHOP treatment, the R-IPI is a clinically useful prognostic index that may help guide treatment planning and interpretation of clinical trials. © 2007 by The American Society of Hematology.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Sehn, L. H., Berry, B., Chhanabhai, M., Fitzgerald, C., Gill, K., Hoskins, P., … Connors, J. M. (2007). The revised International Prognostic Index (R-IPI) is a better predictor of outcome than the standard IPI for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with R-CHOP. Blood, 109(5), 1857–1861. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2006-08-038257

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free