PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare which of three indices--International Prognostic Index (IPI), Italian Lymphoma Intergroup (ILI) index, Follicular Lymphoma adapted International Prognostic Index (FLIPI)--is the most useful in predicting outcome in follicular lymphoma (FL) patients and to identify other clinical and laboratory prognostic factors that influence survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Clinical and prognostic studies were carried out in 99 patients with FL. RESULTS: The distribution of patients in IPI risk groups was 44.4%, 19.2%, and 36.4% of cases classified as low, intermediate, and high risk. According to ILI, low-, intermediate-, and high-risk scores were present in 34.3%; 27.3%, and 38.4% of FL patients. After applying the FLIPI index, the patients were divided into three risk groups: low (21.2% of cases), intermediate (39.4%), and high (39.4%) of FL patients. Survival curves demonstrated a high significant difference for the low- and high-risk group according to IPI and FLIPI (log rank=91.13 and 82.17 respectively; p < 0.0001). Difference in overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival (FFS) among low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups according to ILI was statistically significant (log rank test p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: All three indices are important tools for prognostic evaluation of FL patients, as well as useful in identifying FL patients with poor outcome. IPI and FLIPI classify patients into two risk groups (low/intermediate- and high-risk groups) with significance difference in OS and FFS, but ILI is more reliable in stratifying patients in low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare which of three indices--International Prognostic Index (IPI), Italian Lymphoma Intergroup (ILI) index, Follicular Lymphoma adapted International Prognostic Index (FLIPI)--is the most useful in predicting outcome in follicular lymphoma (FL) patients and to identify other clinical and laboratory prognostic factors that influence survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Clinical and prognostic studies were carried out in 99 patients with FL. RESULTS: The distribution of patients in IPI risk groups was 44.4%, 19.2%, and 36.4% of cases classified as low, intermediate, and high risk. According to ILI, low-, intermediate-, and high-risk scores were present in 34.3%; 27.3%, and 38.4% of FL patients. After applying the FLIPI index, the patients were divided into three risk groups: low (21.2% of cases), intermediate (39.4%), and high (39.4%) of FL patients. Survival curves demonstrated a high significant difference for the low- and high-risk group according to IPI and FLIPI (log rank=91.13 and 82.17 respectively; p < 0.0001). Difference in overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival (FFS) among low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups according to ILI was statistically significant (log rank test p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: All three indices are important tools for prognostic evaluation of FL patients, as well as useful in identifying FL patients with poor outcome. IPI and FLIPI classify patients into two risk groups (low/intermediate- and high-risk groups) with significance difference in OS and FFS, but ILI is more reliable in stratifying patients in low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups.
Authors: B D Cheson; S J Horning; B Coiffier; M A Shipp; R I Fisher; J M Connors; T A Lister; J Vose; A Grillo-López; A Hagenbeek; F Cabanillas; D Klippensten; W Hiddemann; R Castellino; N L Harris; J O Armitage; W Carter; R Hoppe; G P Canellos Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M Federico; U Vitolo; P L Zinzani; T Chisesi; V Clò; G Bellesi; M Magagnoli; M Liberati; C Boccomini; P Niscola; V Pavone; A Cuneo; G Santini; M Brugiatelli; L Baldini; L Rigacci; L Resegotti Journal: Blood Date: 2000-02-01 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: C Foussard; B Desablens; L Sensebe; S François; N Milpied; E Deconinck; V Delwail; J Dugay; T Lamy; C Ghandour; A Le Mevel; H Maisonneuve; P Casassus; P Colombat Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 1997 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: E Kondo; M Ogura; Y Kagami; H Taji; K Miura; T Takeuchi; S Maeda; S Asakura; R Suzuki; S Nakamura; Y Morishima Journal: Int J Hematol Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 2.490
Authors: Philippe Solal-Céligny; Pascal Roy; Philippe Colombat; Josephine White; Jim O Armitage; Reyes Arranz-Saez; Wing Y Au; Monica Bellei; Pauline Brice; Dolores Caballero; Bertrand Coiffier; Eulogio Conde-Garcia; Chantal Doyen; Massimo Federico; Richard I Fisher; Javier F Garcia-Conde; Cesare Guglielmi; Anton Hagenbeek; Corinne Haïoun; Michael LeBlanc; Andrew T Lister; Armando Lopez-Guillermo; Peter McLaughlin; Noël Milpied; Pierre Morel; Nicolas Mounier; Stephen J Proctor; Ama Rohatiner; Paul Smith; Pierre Soubeyran; Hervé Tilly; Umberto Vitolo; Pier-Luigi Zinzani; Emanuele Zucca; Emili Montserrat Journal: Blood Date: 2004-05-04 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Chul S Ha; Joseph S Kong; Peter McLaughlin; Susan L Tucker; Luis E Fayad; Mark A Hess; Richard B Wilder; Fernando Cabanillas; James D Cox Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2003-11-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Muhammad A Mir; Matthew J Maurer; Steven C Ziesmer; Susan L Slager; Thomas Habermann; William R Macon; Brian K Link; Sergei Syrbu; Thomas Witzig; Jonathan W Friedberg; Oliver Press; Michael LeBlanc; James R Cerhan; Anne Novak; Stephen M Ansell Journal: Blood Date: 2014-11-24 Impact factor: 22.113