Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 28, 2025

Enhancing Tumor Content through Tumor Macrodissection
Published on: February 12, 2022
Academic Centers Compared With Nonacademic Centers for Patients With International Prognostic Index Risk-stratified
Daniel A Ermann1, Victoria A Vardell1, Avyakta Kallam2
1Department of Internal Medicine, Creighton University Medical Center, Omaha, NE.
Introduction:
Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a heterogeneous disease associated with varying outcomes. The International Prognostic Index (IPI) has been the standard for the baseline prognostic assessment in these patients. The present study aimed to determine the effect of the treatment facility on the overall survival outcomes in patients with DLBCL stratified by IPI risk groups.
Materials And Methods:
The National Cancer Database was used to identify patients with a diagnosis of DLBCL from 2004 to 2015. DLBCL was stratified by the IPI risk score from low- to high-risk disease, and the overall survival of those treated at academic centers was compared with that of those treated at nonacademic centers.
Results:
Treatment at academic centers was associated with significantly improved overall survival for all patients with DLBCL (108.3 months) compared with those treated at nonacademic centers (74.5 months; P < .001). The median survival for patients with high-risk disease treated at academic centers (33.5 months) was more than twice that of high-risk patients treated at nonacademic centers (14.4 months; P < .001). The median survival for the other risk categories was similarly improved, although less pronounced in the lower IPI score groups. The long-term overall survival for all patients with DLBCL at academic centers was improved at 5 and 10 years (59% and 43% survival, respectively) compared with those treated at nonacademic centers (51% and 35% survival, respectively; P < .001).
Conclusion:
Patients with DLBCL treated at academic centers demonstrated improved survival compared with those treated at nonacademic centers, especially those with high-risk disease. Further investigations into the factors contributing to such disparities are required to help standardize care and improve outcomes.
More Related Videos
07:13Comparison of Predictive Performance of Three Lymph Node Staging Systems in Colorectal Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma Based on Machine Learning Model
Published on: April 18, 2025
04:04Endobronchial Ultrasound-guided Intratumoral Injection of Cisplatin for the Treatment of Isolated Mediastinal Recurrence of Lung Cancer
Published on: February 12, 2017
Related Concept Videos
Cancer Survival Analysis
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
Actuarial Approach
Consider the example of a high-risk surgical procedure with significant early-stage mortality. A two-year clinical study is conducted,...
Kaplan-Meier Approach
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Assumptions of Survival Analysis