Evaluation of a New Prognostic Index for Peripheral T-Cell Lymphoma, Unspecified (PTCL-US).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Peripheral T-cell lymphoma, unspecified (PTCL-US) represents the largest subtype of PTCLs among Western populations. The prognosis of this heterogeneous group is poor with a 5-year overall survival (OS) of approximately 30%. The biological diversity of this subtype has prompted various attempts at refining clinical risk groups. For instance, the International Prognostic Index (IPI), first validated in DLBCL, has also been validated in PTCL-US in several studies. Recently, however, a new Prognostic Index for PTCL-US (PIT) has been proposed (Gallamini et al Blood103 (7): 2004). The purpose of this study was to apply the PIT to all patients with PTCL-US diagnosed and treated at the British Columbia Cancer Agency (BCCA) and to compare its prognostic utility with the IPI. Methods: The BCCA Lymphoid Cancer Database was screened to identify all patients over 18 y diagnosed with PTCL-US by the World Health Organization classification system between January 1981 and June 2004. Patients were excluded if the diagnosis occurred outside of British Columbia or if the pertinent prognostic information was incomplete. Five year OS estimates were calculated for each variable in both the IPI (age >60 y, LDH> normal, PS ≥2, Stage III/IV and >1 extranodal sites) and PIT models (age, LDH> normal, PS ≥2 and bone marrow involvement). Five year OS estimates were then calculated for IPI groups 1, 2 and 3 (0/1, 2/3 and 4/5 factors, respectively) as well as PIT groups 1 through 4 (0, 1, 2 and 3/4 factors, respectively). Results: Of the 134 patients identified, the median age was 61 y and the male to female ratio was 1.6. The predominant sites of extranodal involvement were bone marrow (10%), bone (6%), liver (4%), skin (4%), soft tissue (4%), lung (3%) and GI (3%). As demonstrated in figure 1, 5 year OS estimates were 73%, 24% and 22% for IPI groups 1, 2 and 3 (p=10−4), respectively and 76%, 35%, 25% and 19% for PIT groups 1 through 4, respectively (p=10−4 ). There was no difference between the prognostic models in the subset of 107 (80%) patients treated with CHOP-based chemotherapy. Conclusions: Although the PIT was as effective as the IPI in defining clinical risk groups among PTCL-US patients, it did not provide any additional information in this study. Since the IPI is a well-established, familiar tool with similar prognostic capacity, it is reasonable to continue to apply this model in PTCL-US. With ongoing advances in gene expression profiling, it is likely that new biological models will emerge which may be used in combination with the IPI to better prognosticate this heterogeneous group. Figure Figure
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".