Age-stratified prognostic performance of patient- vs disease-related IPI factors in large B-cell lymphoma
Abstract
Abstract Introduction The International Prognostic Index (IPI, NEJM, 1993) has guided risk stratification in large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) for over three decades. Its simplicity and clinical utility have driven its widespread adoption, even in the era of precision medicine. However, the prognostic value of the IPI and its components may not be uniform across the age spectrum of LBCL patients. We evaluated the contemporary prognostic performance of the IPI in a large international cohort, focusing on age-stratified performance and the relative contributions of its individual components, grouped as patient- and disease-related factors. Methods We harmonized and pooled data from 6,941 patients with newly diagnosed systemic LBCL treated with R-CHOP-like regimens (R-CHOP, R-miniCHOP, DA-EPOCH-R, R-CHOEP, R-CHOP+X) with complete IPI data from three prospective cohorts: NiHiL (Czech Republic, n=4,590; 2010–2023), LEO (USA, n=1,789; 2015–2020), and MER (USA, n=562; 2010–2015). IPI components included age, ECOG performance status (PS) as patient-related, and Ann Arbor clinical stage, serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and extranodal (EN) involvement as disease-related factors. Prognostic performance was evaluated using multivariable Cox regression models and C-statistics. Age-stratified analysis was performed for: ≤40 years (7%; n=492), 41–60 years (28%; n=1,909), 61–80 years (59%; n=4,080), and >80 years (7%; n=460). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Results In the pooled cohort, the median age was 66 years (range 18–95). Compared to the original IPI cohort (n=3,273), our cohort was older (age >60 years: 66% vs 41%) but otherwise comparable: ECOG PS 2–4 (25% vs 24%), clinical stage III–IV (63% vs 66%), elevated LDH (60% vs 52%), and >1 EN involvement (32% vs 30%). In multivariable analysis, age (≤60 vs >60 years) was the strongest predictor of OS (HR=2.78; vs HR=1.96 in original IPI report), followed by ECOG PS (HR=2.07; vs 1.80), clinical stage (HR=1.50; vs 1.47), LDH (HR=1.41; vs 1.85, all P<0.01); EN involvement was not significant (P=0.50, HR=1.03 vs 1.48). Risk group distribution shifted from the original IPI: 28% were low-risk (0–1 factor; vs 35%), 23% low-intermediate (2; vs 27%), 24% high-intermediate (3; vs 22%), and 25% high-risk (4–5; vs 16%). Corresponding 2-year OS rates were 95%, 86%, 78%, and 63%, superior to those of the original IPI cohort (87%, 67%, 55%, 44%; pre-rituximab era). Age was associated with an increasing risk of mortality, with a more pronounced rise beyond 60 years. In a piecewise Cox model, the HR per year was 1.04 for ages ≤60 (linear), 1.05 for 61–69 (accelerated), and 1.06 for ≥70 years (exponential, all P<0.01). ECOG PS retained prognostic significance across age groups: HRs were 1.87 (P=0.06) for ≤40 years, 1.63 (P<0.01) for 41–60, 2.22 (P<0.01) for 61–80, and 1.43 (P<0.01) for >80 years. The strength of other IPI components declined with age. Clinical stage showed decreasing impact: HR 2.08 (P=0.09), 1.97 (P<0.01), 1.49 (P<0.01), and 1.31 (P=0.05). LDH was significant only up to age 80 years: HRs were 2.07 (P=0.04), 1.96 (P<0.01), 1.32 (P<0.01), and 1.21 (P=0.13). EN involvement was non-significant across all groups: HRs were 1.37 (P=0.34), 1.26 (P=0.05), 0.98 (P=0.74), and 1.06 (P=0.67). The IPI C-statistics was 0.676 overall and declined with age: ≤40 years (0.708), 41–60 years (0.683), 61–80 years (0.641), and >80 years (0.598). We next stratified the IPI factors into patient- (age, ECOG PS) and disease-related (clinical stage, LDH, EN involvement). In patients ≤40 years, disease-related factors outperformed patient-related (C-index 0.693 vs 0.602), as in the 41–60 group (C-index 0.677 vs 0.589). In patients aged 61–80, predictive values were comparable (0.613 vs 0.622). In >80-year-olds, both declined substantially (0.580 vs 0.568). Conclusion The IPI remains a valuable prognostic tool in LBCL, particularly among younger patients. However, its overall predictive accuracy declines with age. In patients ≤60 years old, prognosis is primarily driven by disease-related factors, suggesting a role for molecular classifiers to enhance risk stratification. In older patients, incorporation of additional patient-level factors, such as comorbidities and nutritional status could be considered. These findings underscore the need for more individualized prognostic tools for LBCL patients. Funding: NU21-03-00411, P50 CA97274, U01 CA195568, Charles University Haematology-Oncology Cooperatio Program.
Article Details
Authors (40)
Prokop Vodička
1First Department of Medicine, First Faculty of Medicine Charles University and General Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
Matthew Maurer
2Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States
Pavel Klener
George Cholack
2Mayo Clinic, Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Rochester, United States
Vit Prochazka
Yucai Wang
State Key Laboratory of Immune Response and Immunotherapy, Department of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of USTC, Division of Life Sciences and Medicine
David Belada
4th Department of Internal Medicine - Haematology, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic
Christopher Flowers
1Department of Lymphoma and Myeloma, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
David Salek
4Department of Hematology and Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University and University Hospital, Brno, Czech Republic
Izidore S. Lossos
29Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami, Miami, FL
Heidi Mocikova
Andrew Feldman
2Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States
Juraj Ďuraš
11Department of Hematology, Medical Faculty of the Ostrava University and University Hospital, Ostrava, Czech Republic
Jonathon Cohen
15Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta CA
Katerina Steinerova
6Department of Haematology and Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and University Hospital Pilsen, Pilsen, Czech Republic
Carla Casulo
18Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY
Jan Pirnos
9Hospital Ceske Budejovice, Department of Oncology, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic
Brad Kahl
8Washington University, Division of Oncology, St. Louis, United States
Kamila Polgarova
1First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General Hospital, First Department of Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic
Eric Mou
24Division of Hematology, Oncology, and Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA
Andrea Janíková
26Department of Internal Medicine, Hematology and Oncology, University Hospital Brno and Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
Peter Martin
Alice Sykorova
Ales Obr
8Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University and University Hospital, Department of Haemato-Oncology, Olomouc, Czech Republic
David Jaye
8Emory, Atlanta, United States
Vit Campr
19Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
Diana Malarikova
2First Department of Medicine, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
Shaun Riska
2Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States
Michal Kascak
14Medical Faculty of the Ostrava University and University Hospital, Department of Hematology, Ostrava, Czech Republic
Alexandra Suri
7Department of Hematology, Fakultni nemocnice Kralovske Vinohrady and Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
Chijioke Nze
6MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
Jozef Michalka
4Department of Hematology and Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University and University Hospital, Brno, Czech Republic
Radek Jaksa
21First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General Hospital, Institute of Pathology, Prague, Czech Republic
Grzegorz Nowakowski
1Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States
Jitka Dlouha
10Czech Lymphoma Study Group, Datacenter, Prague, Czech Republic
Petra Blahovcova
2General University Hospital in Prague, Brno, Czech Republic, First Department of Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic
Thomas Habermann
2Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States
Katerina Benesova
6Department of Haematology and Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and University Hospital Pilsen, Pilsen, Czech Republic
James Cerhan
2Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States
Marek Trneny