Ki67 Immunohistochemical Expression Level ≥70%, Bulky Presentation ≥7.5 cm, Meningeal Lymphomatosis, and Interim PET ΔSUVmax After 4 Treatment Cycles <71% as Parts of a Practical Scoring System to Predict Progression-Free Survival and Overall Survival in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently, prognostic models in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) fail to closely reflect patients' biological, clinical, and survival heterogeneity. We, therefore, assessed the impact of clinical, biological, immunohistochemical (IHC), baseline (0), and interim (after 2 and 4 treatment cycles) PET (PET0, PET2, and PET4) data not yet included in any scoring system on DLBCL outcome. The analysis was conducted on 89 previously untreated adult patients of the Finistere Observatory Cohort (O.Ly.Fin) with documented DLBCL, recruited between January 2010 and December 2017, with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) as primary and secondary endpoints, respectively. Seventy-eight patients were treated with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, hydroxyadriamycin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP), while 11 received R-dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, and hydroxyadriamycin (EPOCH). Patients were followed up until June 20, 2020. On multivariate analysis, Ki67 ≥ 70% on IHC (K), bulky presentation ≥7.5 cm (B), meningeal lymphomatosis (M), and PET0–PET4 ΔSUVmax &lt;71% (P4) were identified as strong independent predictors of PFS, and all variables but bulky disease also strongly and independently predicted OS. Using these 4 parameters, we designed a scoring model named KBMP4 stratifying patients into low- (0 parameter), intermediate- (1 or 2), and high-risk (≥3) subgroups by the Kaplan–Meier analysis. At a median follow-up of 43 months, PFS and OS were both 100% in the low-risk subgroup, 71.4 and 90.5%, respectively, in the intermediate-risk subgroup, and 0 and 55.5%, respectively, in the high-risk subgroup. Use of the KBMP4 model in clinical practice may improve accuracy in prognostic prediction and treatment decisions in de novo DLBCL patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".