Evaluation of the MD Anderson tumor score for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in the rituximab era.

OBJECTIVES: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is an aggressive heterogeneous lymphoma with standard treatment. However, 30%-40% of patients still fail, so we should know which patients are candidates for alternative therapies. IPI is the main prognostic score but, in the rituximab era, it cannot identify a very high-risk (HR) subset. The MD Anderson Cancer Center reported a score in the prerituximab era exclusively considering tumor-related variables: Tumor Score (TS). We aim to validate TS in the rituximab era and to analyze its current potential role. METHODS: From GELTAMO DLBCL registry, we selected those patients homogeneously treated with R-CHOP (n = 1327). RESULTS: Five-years PFS and OS were 62% and 74%. All variables retained an independent prognostic role in the revised TS (R-TS), identifying four different risk groups, with 5-years PFS of 86%, 71%, 50%, and very HR (28%). With a further categorization of three variables of the original TS (Ann Arbor Stage, LDH and B2M), we generated a new index that allowed an improvement in HR assessment. CONCLUSIONS: (a) All variables of the original TS retain an independent prognostic role, and R-TS remains predictive in the rituximab era; (b) R-TS and additional categorization of LDH, B2M, and AA stage (enhanced TS) increased the ability to identify HR subsets.

Validation of the NCCN-IPI for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL): the addition of ß2 -microglobulin yields a more accurate GELTAMO-IPI.

The study included 1848 diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL)patients treated with chemotherapy/rituximab. The aims were to validate the National Comprehensive Cancer Network International Prognostic Index (NCCN-IPI) and explore the effect of adding high Beta-2 microglobulin (ß2M), primary extranodal presentation and intense treatment to the NCCN-IPI variables in order to develop an improved index. Comparing survival curves, NCCN-IPI discriminated better than IPI, separating four risk groups with 5-year overall survival rates of 93%, 83%, 67% and 49%, but failing to identify a true high-risk population. For the second aim the series was split into training and validation cohorts: in the former the multivariate model identified age, lactate dehydrogenase, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, Stage III-IV, and ß2M as independently significant, whereas the NCCN-IPI-selected extranodal sites, primary extranodal presentation and intense treatments were not. These results were confirmed in the validation cohort. The Grupo Español de Linfomas/Trasplante de Médula ósea (GELTAMO)-IPI developed here, with 7 points, significantly separated four risk groups (0, 1-3, 4 or ≥5 points) with 11%, 58%, 17% and 14% of patients, and 5-year overall survival rates of 93%, 79%, 66% and 39%, respectively. In the comparison GELTAMO IPI discriminated better than the NCCN-IPI. In conclusion, GELTAMO-IPI is more accurate than the NCCN-IPI and has statistical and practical advantages in that the better discrimination identifies an authentic high-risk group and is not influenced by primary extranodal presentation or treatments of different intensity.