ライフサイエンスコーパス: International Prognostic Index

1 rmediate, and 44% high-risk (according to FL International Prognostic Index).

2 t OS independent of the Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index.

3 ory disease and the second-line age-adjusted international prognostic index.

4 or risk according to the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index.

5 association was independent of the clinical international prognostic index.

6 this predictor was compared with that of the international prognostic index.

7 and clinical prognostic factors, such as the International Prognostic Index.

8 stage, treatment, extent of surgery, and the International Prognostic Index.

9 rognostic factor for overall survival is the International Prognostic Index.

10 th adjustment for age, sex, and age-adjusted International Prognostic Index.

11 gy Resource (MER) after adjusting for the FL international prognostic index.

12 gh risk according to the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index.

13 variables, including the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index.

14 ts was additional to the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index.

15 had a high-intermediate or high age-adjusted international prognostic index.

16 is comparable with the Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index.

17 s survival prediction was independent of the International Prognostic Index.

18 d subgroups (eg, male v female, age-adjusted International Prognostic Index 0 or 1 v 2 or 3, age youn

19 , stratified by baseline follicular lymphoma International Prognostic Index (0-3 vs 4-5) and geograph

20 for progression-free survival adjusted by FL International Prognostic Index 2 versus R-CVP was 0.73 f

21 ults were similar for the validation set (FL International Prognostic Index-adjusted hazard ratio, 19

22 The model was independent of the International Prognostic Index and added to its predicti

23 death in these 4 groups after adjusting for International Prognostic Index and age were 1.0 (referen

24 When evaluated in a multivariate model, the International Prognostic Index and more than 20% infiltr

25 Multivariate analysis confirmed that the International Prognostic Index and mutations in the DNA-

26 The application of the International Prognostic Index and serologic staging sho

27 In multivariate analysis, only the International Prognostic Index and the (18)F-FDG PET/CT

28 multivariate models that controlled for the International Prognostic Index and the cell-of-origin su

29 The International Prognostic Index and the Follicular Lympho

30 1) and OS (P = .0006) independently from the International Prognostic Index and the Hans classifier.

31 onstrated that prognostic models such as the International Prognostic Index and the Prognostic Index

32 logies, 46% were considered high risk by the International Prognostic Index, and 34% had resistant di

33 Only age, International Prognostic Index, and MYC rearrangement re

34 y selected chemotherapy, Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index, and region.

35 Clinical risk factor models such as the International Prognostic Index are used to identify diff

36 Prognostic Index and the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index are widely used for the r

37 y the recently described CNS risk score (CNS-International Prognostic Index [CNS-IPI]), 34% were low

38 rmed current established cell of origin, the International Prognostic Index comprising clinical varia

39 In multivariate analysis with International Prognostic Index criteria, HIF-1alpha rema

40 Adjustment for the International Prognostic Index did not alter the impact

41 , only M-MDSC number was correlated with the International Prognostic Index, event-free survival, and

42 erved in multivariable analyses adjusted for International Prognostic Index factors in event-free sur

43 Univariate analyses using the established International Prognostic Index factors of age, tumor sta

44 In addition to International Prognostic Index factors, male gender was

45 to IV disease, 37% had a Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) score of 3 to 5,

46 ubset analyses using the follicular lymphoma international prognostic index (FLIPI) score were perfor

47 After adjusting for Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) scores, the diffe

48 CVP irrespective of the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) subgroup, the Int

49 Baseline Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) was significantly

50 CREBBP, and CARD11), the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI), and Eastern Coop

51 Using the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI), three distinct g

52 age (P = .02), high-risk Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI; P = .01), and Int

53 Clinical criteria such as the international prognostic index, follicular lymphoma inte

54 The established International Prognostic Index for lymphomas has not inc

55 rend was maintained after we adjusted for FL International Prognostic Index (hazard ratio, 6.44; 95%

56 rvival, and although the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index helps to risk-stratify pa

57 , and intermediate- or high-risk Mantle Cell International Prognostic Index in 54%.

58 ultivariate analysis after adjusting for the International Prognostic Index in both the training and

59 ts were stratified according to the modified International Prognostic Index, including lactate dehydr

60 on rate after CR was 6% (95% CI, 4 to 9) for International Prognostic Index (IPI) </= 2 versus 21% (9

61 e analysis together with the elements of the International Prognostic Index (IPI) (P =.038).

62 roups at diagnosis based on the age-adjusted International Prognostic Index (IPI) and 10 patients wit

63 high-intermediate or high risk according to International Prognostic Index (IPI) criteria.

64 The risk model consists of the International Prognostic Index (IPI) factors in addition

65 Anderson prognostic tumor score (MDATS) and International Prognostic Index (IPI) for all patients wa

66 ed prognostic information independent of the International Prognostic Index (IPI) for overall surviva

67 expression profiles and the clinically based International Prognostic Index (IPI) for personalized pr

68 2, 83%) and no difference was observed among International Prognostic Index (IPI) groups.

69 The International Prognostic Index (IPI) has been the basis

70 is incorporating prognostic factors from the International Prognostic Index (IPI) identified survivin

71 ficant predictor independent of the clinical International Prognostic Index (IPI) in multivariate ana

72 The International Prognostic Index (IPI) is useful in predic

73 d between V(H) gene use, mutation level, and International Prognostic Index (IPI) or survival.

74 logy Group performance status of 0-2; had an International Prognostic Index (IPI) risk of low-interme

75 In the 18 patients with an International Prognostic Index (IPI) score > or = 2, the

76 The most important prognostic factors were International Prognostic Index (IPI) score (0-2 vs 3-5;

77 dian age was 63 years (range, 20 to 87), and International Prognostic Index (IPI) scores were general

78 ional Prognostic Index (FLIPI) subgroup, the International Prognostic Index (IPI) subgroup, baseline

79 The International Prognostic Index (IPI) was predictive of b

80 By the age-adjusted International Prognostic Index (IPI), 42% were at high r

81 SUVs) on positron emission tomography (PET), International Prognostic Index (IPI), and Ki67 staining

82 n pre-treatment characteristics, such as the International Prognostic Index (IPI), are currently used

83 85) and 40% had a high-intermediate or high International Prognostic Index (IPI).

84 n tested together with the components of the International Prognostic Index (IPI).

85 risk models, the Tumor Score System and the International Prognostic Index (IPI).

86 ependent of MYC/BCL2 dual expression and the International Prognostic Index (IPI).

87 ssing added prognostic value to the clinical International Prognostic Index (IPI).

88 icant for EFS and OS after adjusting for the International Prognostic Index (IPI).

89 ional Prognostic Index (FLIPI; P = .01), and International Prognostic Index (IPI; P = .04) scores at

90 s were randomly assigned (1:1; stratified by International Prognostic Index [IPI] score) to six 21-da

91 ican Lymphoma classification, Ann Arbor, and International Prognostic Index [IPI] scores) and hepatol

92 atients, 90% for 90 good-prognosis patients (International Prognostic Index [IPI], 1 or 2), and 81% f

93 Additionally, we discovered that within the International Prognostic Index low-risk group, the gene

94 dehydrogenase > 1N 38%, Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (low 55%, intermediate 38

95 The m7-FL International Prognostic Index (m7-FLIPI), a prospective

96 o first-line therapy (m7-Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index [m7-FLIPI]) and for poor

97 The MALT-lymphoma International Prognostic Index (MALT-IPI) also significa

98 Whether adjusted for MCL International Prognostic Index (MIPI) or not, deletions

99 The Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (MIPI) scores at the star

100 In 2008, the MCL International Prognostic Index (MIPI) was developed as t

101 factors included in the Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (MIPI), and proliferation

102 Thus, we generated a new biological MCL International Prognostic Index (MIPI-B)-miR prognosticat

103 inical characteristics (Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index [MIPI]).

104 risk factor as defined by the stage-modified International Prognostic Index (nonbulky stage II diseas

105 te of disease and a second-line age-adjusted International Prognostic Index of 3 or 4 before ICE chem

106 tional prognostic index, follicular lymphoma international prognostic index or a formula using age, p

107 ts presenting with high Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index or low hemoglobin level.

108 (P = .0006) and a more advanced age adjusted international prognostic index (P = .0039).

109 odal and extranodal disease (P = .002), high International Prognostic Index (P = .006), advanced stag

110 High international prognostic index, poor-prognosis molecular

111 The prognostic importance of the revised International Prognostic Index (R-IPI) and cell of origi

112 dent of cell of origin (COO) and the revised International Prognostic Index (R-IPI).

113 05 and 0.02, respectively), whereas only the International Prognostic Index remained an independent p

114 s high-intermediate risk or high risk on the International Prognostic Index remains controversial and

115 osed in the era of HAART, application of the International Prognostic Index remains useful.

116 intention-to-treat population adjusting for International Prognostic Index risk factors and age (> 7

117 nt in a multivariable analysis adjusting for International Prognostic Index risk factors with a hazar

118 aled only 2 independent predictors of death: International Prognostic Index risk group and CD4 cell c

119 sation was stratified by Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index risk group and geographic

120 < .001) for the Bcl-6(-) subset, whereas the International Prognostic Index risk group was the only s

121 In a multivariable analysis adjusted for International Prognostic Index rituximab improved event-

122 ase after 12 months), secondary age-adjusted International Prognostic Index (saaIPI) more than 1 (EFS

123 by country, gender, and Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index score (0-2 vs 3-5).

124 In multivariate analysis, a high International Prognostic Index score (3-5) and the non-G

125 ly influenced by CD4(+) count (P < .001) and International Prognostic Index score (P = .022), but not

126 sociated with older age (P = .02) and higher International Prognostic Index score (P = .04).

127 survival of patients stratified according to International Prognostic Index score could be further st

128 A Pretransplant International Prognostic Index score of < or = 1 indicat

129 with a high-intermediate (56%) or high (44%) International Prognostic Index score were randomly assig

130 a multivariable model that included elevated international prognostic index score, activated B-cell m

131 gnosis-to-treatment lag time, calendar year, International Prognostic Index score, and NHL grade.

132 Patients were stratified by region, International Prognostic Index score, and previous stem-

133 incristine, prednisone), Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index score, and region.

134 therapy and simplified mantle-cell lymphoma international prognostic index score, and were randomly

135 age for MR regardless of Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index score, tumor burden, resi

136 lactase dehydrogenase (P = .0085) and higher International Prognostic Index scores (P = .01).

137 logic grade 3a, and high Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index scores at diagnosis were

138 IPI of 3 to 5), as were Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index scores in patients with M

139 tients, median age was 68 years, and 60% had International Prognostic Index scores more than or equal

140 Comparisons of patients with International Prognostic Index scores of 0 to 3 showed t

141 hydrogenase, no bone marrow involvement, and International Prognostic Index scores of no more than 2

142 r performance status and lower-risk standard International Prognostic Index scores were more commonly

143 years, 47% had high-risk Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index scores, 65% were chemothe

144 vanced-stage disease, thrombocytopenia, high International Prognostic Index scores, and a shorter pro

145 On the basis of the Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index scores, the proportions o

146 age III/IV disease; 49% had high Mantle Cell International Prognostic Index scores, with 15% blastoid

147 71% had high intermediate-risk or high-risk International Prognostic Index scores.

148 y and 81% with high-risk Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index scores.

149 ted with miR-615-3p and Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index scores.

150 67% had high or high-intermediate International Prognostic Index scores; the median CD4 ly

151 nalysis according to the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index showed that 21% of patien

152 according to the second-line, age-adjusted, international prognostic index, the ORR was 59% and CR 3

153 Irrespective of the age-adjusted International Prognostic Index, those patients receiving

154 ogic prognostic model could be used with the International Prognostic Index to stratify patients for

155 Multivariate analysis confirmed that the International Prognostic Index, tumor size, and TP53 DNA

156 In 15 patients, the International Prognostic Index was available: 0, eight p

157 in was >/= 3 mg/L in 12% and 33% (P = .017); International Prognostic Index was high (score, 3 to 5)

158 High or intermediate/high age-adjusted International Prognostic Index was present in 28%.

159 The International Prognostic Index was the only significant

160 This gene-based predictor and the international prognostic index were independent prognost

161 variate analysis, BCL2 mutations and high FL international prognostic index were independent risk fac

162 ese risk groups and the Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index were independently associ

163 The number of extranodal sites and the International Prognostic Index were predictive of CNS re

164 odels were evaluated, including the standard International Prognostic Index, which comprised the foll