A study of comparison of prognostic models in peripheral T cell lymphoma in a tertiary care centre in South India

Date

19 Dec 2015

Session

Poster presentation 1

Presenters

M S Namratha

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2015) 26 (suppl_9): 85-92. 10.1093/annonc/mdv526

Authors

M.S.U. Namratha1, D. Lokanatha2, K. Lakshmaiah2, G. Babu2, L.A. Jacob2, S. Babu2, K. Lokesh2, S.C. Saldanha1

Author affiliations

  • 1 Medical Oncology, Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology, 560029 - Bangalore/IN
  • 2 Department Of Medical Oncology, Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology, 560029 - Bangalore/IN
More

Resources

Aim/Background

To compare the usefulness of three commonly used prognostic scores in patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) from a single institution.

Methods

The study was conducted at department of Medical Oncology in Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology at Bangalore in South India. It was by a systematic review of case files of all 52 patients diagnosed to have PTCL from January 2005 to Details noted down included Progression Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS). All patients were prognosticated by three different approved scores- International Prognostic Index (IPI), Prognostic Index for T cell lymphoma (PIT) and International Peripheral T Cell Lymphoma Project score(IPTCLP). Patients were followed up for a minimum period of three years or till disease progression or till death, whichever is earlier. Statistical methods were Kaplan Meier, Log rank test survival analysis.

Results

Median PFS in study population was 9.1 months and median OS was 13.6 months. PFS in stages I, II, III and IV were 15,14,7 and 4 months respectively. Median PFS in low, low intermediate, high intermediate and high risk groups of IPI were 17,14,4 and 4 months respectively. OS also showed a association with IPI scores (p = 0.04). Median PFS in low(0), low intermediate(1), high intermediate(2) and high(3,4) risk groups of PIT score were 24,15,6 and 3 months respectively. This was just approaching statistical significance with p value being 0.059. But, OS did not show a statistically significant association with PIT score (p = 0.09). IPTCLP score did not show a statistically significant association in any particular risk group of patients with p value being 0.651 for PFS and 0.8 for OS.

Conclusions

IPI score correlates the best with response rates to chemotherapy reflecting as PFS and also OS in the local population. PIT score has only borderline prognostic use more so in the high risk groups only for PFS but, not for OS. IPTCLP score has no consistent correlation with prognosis be it PFS or OS, reflecting questionable inclusion of platelet count in score.

Clinical trial identification

Not applicable

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Resources from the same session

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings