FLIPI24 as a prognostic model in marginal zone lymphoma: Results from an international multi-cohort analysis
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) is an indolent and heterogenous disease. Several prognostic models have been proposed to assess outcomes in MZL, including FLIPI, IPI (primarily designed for overall survival [OS]), and MZL-specific scores such as MALT-IPI (event-free survival [EFS]) and MZL-IPI (progression-free survival). FLIPI24 is a recently developed prognostic index for patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) treated with first-line (1L) immunochemotherapy (IC), identifying a high-risk population with inferior survival and increased risk of lymphoma-related death. FLIPI24 has also demonstrated robust performance in the entire FL population, including patients under observation. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic utility of FLIPI24 in patients with MZL and to compare its performance with other established indices (FLIPI, MZL-IPI, IPI, MALT-IPI). Methods We pooled harmonized data from newly diagnosed MZL patients with complete available FLIPI24 variables (age, white blood cell count [WBC], hemoglobin [HGB], serum lactate dehydrogenase [LDH], and beta-2-microglobulin [B2M] levels) treated with 1L IC. Data were collected from three prospective international cohorts: NiHiL (Czech Republic; n=897; enrolled 2005–2023), LEO (USA; n=62; 2015–2020), and MER (USA; n=32; 2010–2015), forming a pooled cohort of 991 1L IC-treated patients. The analysis was then extended to include all newly diagnosed MZL patients (n=2,116), regardless of treatment. The primary endpoint in the 1L IC-treated cohort was EFS at 24 months (EFS24), and for all MZL patients, it was OS. Secondary endpoints included OS24 for 1L IC treated cohort, lymphoma-related mortality by FLIPI24 risk groups, and comparative prognostic performance of FLIPI, IPI, and MALT-IPI, by C-statistics; performance of MZL-IPI was assessed on a subgroup of NiHiL patients with available data (n=877 all MZL, n=485 1L IC-treated). Results Among the 991 1L IC-treated patients, the median age at diagnosis was 66 years (range 22–94); 47% were male; 11% had ECOG performance status ≥2, 68% clinical stage III–IV, 42% elevated LDH, 40% IPI 3–5, 42% FLIPI 3–5, and 62% MALT-IPI 2–3. The median B2M level was 2.8 mg/L, WBC 7.0 × 10⁹/L, and HGB 13.1 g/dL. MZL subtypes were: 64% extranodal (EMZL), 22% nodal (NMZL), and 14% splenic (SMZL). Most common 1L IC regimens were R-CVP (46%), R-CHOP-like (32%), R-chlorambucil (9%), and B-R (9%). FLIPI24 stratified patients into low- (18%), intermediate- (37%), and high-risk (45%) groups. High-risk patients were older (median 54 vs 65 vs 71 years for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively; P<0.01), had more frequent adverse baseline features, and were more likely to have the SMZL subtype (2% vs 7% vs 25% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, respectively; P<0.01). After a median follow-up of 7.2 years, EFS24 was 89%, 85%, and 65% (P<0.01) across low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups; OS at 2 years was 98%, 97%, and 79%; and OS at 5 years was 96%, 91%, and 62%, resp. (P<0.01). The 5-year cumulative incidence of lymphoma-related death was 13% in high-risk vs 6% in low-/intermediate-risk groups. FLIPI24 showed better prognostic accuracy for EFS compared with FLIPI, MZL-IPI, IPI and MALT-IPI (C-index: 0.640 vs 0.630, 0.622, 0.620 and 0.603, resp.), as well as for OS (C-index: 0.710 vs 0.672, 0.641, 0.663, 0.652, resp.). Prognostic performance was consistent across MZL subtypes. In the extended cohort of 2,116 newly diagnosed MZL patients (47% receiving IC, 17% rituximab monotherapy, 11% radiotherapy, 8% surgery, 2% antibiotics; 15% observed), FLIPI24 stratified patients into low- (24%), intermediate- (39%), and high-risk (37%) groups. OS at 2 year was 99%, 97%, and 83%, at 5 years it was 96%, 91%, and 62%, resp. (P<0.01). The 5-year cumulative incidence of lymphoma-related death was 12% in high-risk vs 4% in low-/intermediate-risk patients. FLIPI24 outperformed other indices (OS C-index: 0.754 vs MZL-IPI 0.654, FLIPI 0.700, MALT-IPI 0.694, IPI 0.699). Conclusion FLIPI24 demonstrates strong and consistent prognostic performance across all MZL subtypes, identifying ~40% of patients as high-risk with significantly worse survival and increased lymphoma-related mortality. The FLIPI24 outperforms FLIPI, MZL-IPI, IPI, and MALT-IPI in predicting outcomes and may serve as a practical tool to guide risk-adapted management and selection of patients for novel therapies in MZL. Funding: NU21-03-00411, P50 CA97274, U01 CA195568.
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
Michal Masar
1First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General Hospital, First Department of Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic
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
Andrea Janíková
26Department of Internal Medicine, Hematology and Oncology, University Hospital Brno and Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
Izidore S. Lossos
29Division of Hematology, Department of Medicine, Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami, Miami, FL
David Belada
4th Department of Internal Medicine - Haematology, University Hospital and Faculty of Medicine, Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic
Jonathon Cohen
15Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta CA
Ales Obr
8Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University and University Hospital, Department of Haemato-Oncology, Olomouc, Czech Republic
Eric Mou
24Division of Hematology, Oncology, and Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA
Heidi Mocikova
Carla Casulo
18Wilmot Cancer Institute, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY
Juraj Ďuraš
11Department of Hematology, Medical Faculty of the Ostrava University and University Hospital, Ostrava, Czech Republic
Chijioke Nze
6MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
Katerina Steinerova
6Department of Haematology and Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and University Hospital Pilsen, Pilsen, Czech Republic
Dilan Patel
9Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Division of Oncology, St. Louis, United States
Josef Karban
1First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General Hospital, First Department of Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic
Peter Martin
David Salek
4Department of Hematology and Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University and University Hospital, Brno, Czech Republic
Andrew Feldman
2Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States
Alice Sykorova
Elliot Cahn
2Mayo Clinic, Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Rochester, United States
Magdalena Klanova
Vit Campr
19Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and Motol University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic
David Jaye
8Emory, Atlanta, United States
Jozef Michalka
4Department of Hematology and Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University and University Hospital, Brno, Czech Republic
Pavla Stepankova
6Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and University Hospital Hradec Kralove, Fourth Department of Internal Medicine – Hematology, Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic
Sergei Syrbu
3University of Iowa, Iowa City, United States
Samuel Hricko
1Masaryk University Brno, Brno, Czech Republic, Faculcy of medicine, Brno, Czech Republic
Alexandra Suri
7Department of Hematology, Fakultni nemocnice Kralovske Vinohrady and Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
Melissa Larson
2Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States
Radek Jaksa
21First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General Hospital, Institute of Pathology, Prague, Czech Republic
Jitka Dlouha
10Czech Lymphoma Study Group, Datacenter, Prague, Czech Republic
Thomas Habermann
2Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States
Petra Blahovcova
2General University Hospital in Prague, Brno, Czech Republic, First Department of Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic
Christopher Flowers
1Department of Lymphoma and Myeloma, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
Pavel Klener
Vit Prochazka
James Cerhan
2Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States
Marek Trneny