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

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

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

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

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

7 association was independent of the clinical international prognostic index.

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

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

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

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

12 ent of patients had high-risk simplified MCL international prognostic index.

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

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

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

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

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

18 variables, including the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index.

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

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

21 ive Oncology Group performance status 2, and International Prognostic Index 2 to 5.

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

23 August 2020, 83 adults with untreated DLBCL (International Prognostic Index 2-5) were screened and 66

24 (18-60 years) with an untreated age-adjusted International Prognostic Index (aaIPI) score 1 DLBCL wer

25 and interim PET (I-PET) to the age-adjusted international prognostic index (aaIPI) to predict 2-y pr

26 positive patients had a Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index-adjusted hazard ratio for

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

35 The International Prognostic Index and the Follicular Lympho

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

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

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

39 The sGA groups, International Prognostic Index, and hemoglobin levels we

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

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

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

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

44 We derived the BL International Prognostic Index (BL-IPI) from a real-worl

45 Using multivariate analysis, Biologic MCL International Prognostic Index (bMIPI) risk group (P = 0

46 hed prognostic indicators, including the CLL international prognostic index (c-statistic, 0.767 vs 0.

47 e evaluated the chronic lymphocytic leukemia International Prognostic Index (CLL-IPI) in patients wit

48 utility of the chronic lymphocytic leukemia-international prognostic index (CLL-IPI) in predicting o

49 High-risk CNS International Prognostic Index (CNS-IPI) and concordant

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

51 his gene remained independent of the routine international prognostic index components (i.e., age, st

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

59 multivariable analysis, follicular lymphoma international prognostic index (FLIPI) and TMTV remained

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

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

62 ), limited-stage (I/II) disease, low-risk FL International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) score, normal bas

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

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

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

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

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

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

69 ra of prognostic scores (Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index [FLIPI], FLIPI2, PRIMA-Pr

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

71 The established International Prognostic Index for lymphomas has not inc

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

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

74 ivariable analysis, high-risk simplified MCL international prognostic index, high Ki-67, TP53 aberrat

75 The revised international prognostic index identified 42% as high ri

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

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

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

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

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

81 diagnosed DLBCL, stage II bulky-IV disease, International Prognostic Index (IPI) 2, and ECOG perform

82 anodal site, elevated lactate dehydrogenase, International Prognostic Index (IPI) 3-5, and age-adjust

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

84 formance of this model was compared with the international prognostic index (IPI) and 2 models incorp

85 survival (OS) was compared with that of the International Prognostic Index (IPI) and EOT PET-compute

86 MTV and survival and to compare MTV with the International Prognostic Index (IPI) and its individual

87 se large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) such as the international prognostic index (IPI) components (ie, age

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

89 alysis encompassing the common genes and the international prognostic index (IPI) factors as covariat

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

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

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

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

94 2, 83%) and no difference was observed among International Prognostic Index (IPI) groups.

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

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

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

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

99 gnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma with an International Prognostic Index (IPI) of 2-5.

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

101 patients (74%) had stage III or IV disease; International Prognostic Index (IPI) risk groups include

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

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

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

105 fuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) with high International Prognostic Index (IPI) scores (2 to 3) com

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

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

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

109 By CNS-International Prognostic Index (IPI), 18% were considere

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

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

112 , total metabolic tumor volumes (TMTVs), the International Prognostic Index (IPI), and outcome.

113 r elevations in lactate dehydrogenase, lower International Prognostic Index (IPI), and predominantly

114 e for age, sex, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), international prognostic index (IPI), and pretreatment,

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

116 International Prognostic Index (IPI), baseline metabolic

117 ge, performance status) are widely used: the International Prognostic Index (IPI), revised IPI (R-IPI

118 tools for risk stratification, including the international prognostic index (IPI), tissue molecular a

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

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

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

122 formance of our clinical PET model using the international prognostic index (IPI).

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

124 tabolic tumor volume (TMTV) and age-adjusted international prognostic index (IPI).

125 CL cohort and compared them with the revised International Prognostic Index (IPI).

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

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

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

129 years with LBCL and at least one HR feature (international prognostic index [IPI] >=3, National Compr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

138 cance when adjusted for Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (MIPI) and MIPI + Ki-67 (

139 Time-to-event analyses showed that MCL international prognostic index (MIPI) high-risk category

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

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

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

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

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

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

146 In patients with a high CNS international prognostic index (n = 600), the 3-year CNS

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

148 57.0% of patients presented an age-adjusted International Prognostic Index of 2 to 3, 18.9% had East

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

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

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

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

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

154 High international prognostic index, poor-prognosis molecular

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

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

157 05 and 0.02, respectively), whereas only the International Prognostic Index remained an independent p

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

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

160 per the 2018 Prospective Cutaneous Lymphoma International Prognostic Index revised blood response cr

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

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

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

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

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

166 effective across age groups, HIV status, and International Prognostic Index risk groups.

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

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

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

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

171 In multivariate analysis, a high International Prognostic Index score (3-5) and the PTCL-

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

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

174 (27.4% v 5.2%), but not Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index score 0 to 1 (4.0% v 3.7%

175 agnosis [25.4% v 16.6%]) Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index score 3 to 5 (27.4% v 5.2

176 stem, with block randomisation stratified by international prognostic index score and cell-of-origin

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

178 mbination (47% poor-risk Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index score in each arm).

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

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

181 Clinical factors include a high MCL International Prognostic Index score with a high Ki-67 p

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

183 When adjusted for subtype, International Prognostic Index score, and ASCT, the risk

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

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

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

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

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

189 cording to local pathology assessment and by international prognostic index score.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

199 o 60 years, all stages, and all age adjusted International Prognostic Index scores, except 0 and stag

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

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

202 71% had high intermediate-risk or high-risk International Prognostic Index scores.

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

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

205 67% had high or high-intermediate International Prognostic Index scores; the median CD4 ly

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

207 D results and the MIPI (Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index), showing an area under t

208 The PROCLIPI (Prospective Cutaneous Lymphoma International Prognostic Index) study was launched in 20

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

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

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

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

213 stage III or IV DLBCL, and the age-adjusted international prognostic index was 2 or higher in 25 (68

214 CNS International Prognostic Index was 4-6 in 83.4% all-pts.

215 In an independent univariate analysis, the international prognostic index was associated with OS ou

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

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

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

219 The International Prognostic Index was statistically signifi

220 The International Prognostic Index was the only significant

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

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

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

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

225 atment response on interim scan and baseline International Prognostic Index were used to allocate pat

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

227 f a number of prognostic factors and the CLL International Prognostic Index, which is helpful in disc