Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 22, 2025
Performing Data Mining And Integrative Analysis Of Biomarker in Breast Cancer Using Multiple Publicly Accessible Databases
Published on: May 17, 2019
The prognostic value of IPI in patients with primary breast lymphoma, a multicenter retrospective study
Kexin Feng1, Shuangtao Zhao2, Qingyao Shang1
1Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, People's Republic of China.
Background:
Due to the rarity of PBL and the lack of large-scale studies, the prognostic value of IPI in PBL was controversial. Especially in the rituximab era, the ability of IPI to stratify prognosis in patients receiving immunochemotherapy was severely reduced. Then revised IPI (R-IPI) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network IPI (NCCN-IPI) were introduced. The present study aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of IPI and the other IPIs in patients with PBL in a Chinese population.
Methods:
We performed a multicenter retrospective study of 71 patients with PBL from 3 institutions in China. The Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank tests were used for the survival analysis. Cox regression analysis was performed to evaluate the prognostic factors. Subgroup analysis was performed to assess the prognostic significance of IPI scores, R-IPI scores, and NCCN-IPI scores.
Results:
The median follow-up was 4.7 years (0.7-21.8 years). The 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 90.2% and 96.3%. In the multivariate analysis, only IPI scores and radiotherapy were significantly associated with OS and PFS (P < 0.05). Applying the R-IPI in our patient cohort indicates a significant difference in PFS between the two groups of R-IPI (P = 0.034) but not for OS (P = 0.072). And the NCCN-IPI was prognostic for OS (P = 0.025) but not for PFS (P = 0.066). Subgroup analyses of IPI showed that survival analysis of IPI scores for the PFS and OS of patients using rituximab were not significantly different (P > 0.05).
Conclusions:
Our study confirms the prognostic value of IPI in patients with PBL, but the predictive value of IPI proved to be relatively low with the addition of the rituximab. The R-IPI and NCCN-IPI can accurately assess the high and low-risk groups of PBL patients but were insufficient to evaluate the intermediate risk group.
