All content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals only. By acknowledging this message and accessing the information on this website you are confirming that you are a Healthcare Professional. If you are a patient or carer, please visit the Lymphoma Coalition.

The Lymphoma Hub uses cookies on this website. They help us give you the best online experience. By continuing to use our website without changing your cookie settings, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our updated Cookie Policy

Introducing

Now you can personalise
your Lymphoma Hub experience!

Bookmark content to read later

Select your specific areas of interest

View content recommended for you

Find out more
  TRANSLATE

The Lymphoma Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the Lymphoma Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The Lymphoma Hub and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.

Steering CommitteeAbout UsNewsletterContact
LOADING
You're logged in! Click here any time to manage your account or log out.
LOADING
You're logged in! Click here any time to manage your account or log out.
2016-11-16T13:26:16.000Z

Which is more accurate for predicting OS and TTFT, CLL-IPI or MDACC-PI?

Nov 16, 2016
Share:

Bookmark this article

Massimo Gentile from the Azienda Ospedaliera of Cosenza, Consenza, Italy, and colleagues from across Italy and the US recently published data in a letter to the editor on the topic of comparing two prognostic tools for CLL in a community based cohort in Blood, October, 2016. The authors set out to compare and assess the validity of the recently published CLL-IPI and the MD Anderson Cancer Center Prognostic Index (MDACC-PI) scores for predicting OS and TTFT in newly diagnosed CLL patients. The data was collected from 858 patients across 5 Italian centers and, in a separate data set, 506 patients at the Mayo Clinic in the US.

Highlights:

  • 5-year OS of CLL-IPI groups in this study, similar to original publication
  • OS C-statistic: CLL-IPI = 0.71 (P<0.0001) vs. MDACC-PI = 0.68 (P<0.001)
  • TTFT C-statistic: CLL-IPI = 0.72 (P<0.001) vs. MDACC-PI = 0.63 (P<0.001)
  • Mayo Clinic OS C-statistic: CLL-IPI 0.75 (P<0.001) vs. MDACC-PI = 0.66 (P<0.001)
  • Mayo Clinic TTFT C-statistic: CLL-IPI 0.74 (P<0.001) vs. MDACC-PI = 0.66 (P<0.001)

The CLL-IPI is a more accurate prognostic predictor than MDACC-PI in terms of both OS and TTFT, in two separate populations, confirming the use of CLL-IPI. However, as MDACC-PI can be used without FISH (TP53) or IGHV, unlike CLL-IPI, it may still be useful in some settings. When taken together, this work validates the CLL-IPI for use in predicting both OS and TTFT in patients with newly diagnosed CLL.  

  1. Gentile M. et al. Validation of the CLL-IPI and comparison with the MDACC prognostic index in newly diagnosed patients. Blood. Oct 2016; 128:2093–2095. doi: 10.1182/blood-2016-07-728261.
  2. International CLL-IPI working group. An international prognostic index for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL-IPI): a meta-analysis of individual patient data. Lancet Oncology. 2016 Jun; 17(6):779–790. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30029-8. Epub 2016 May 13.
  3. Wierda W.G. et al. Prognostic nomogram and index for overall survival in previously untreated patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Blood. 2007 Jun 1; 109(11):4679–4685. Epub 2007 Feb 13.

Understanding your specialty helps us to deliver the most relevant and engaging content.

Please spare a moment to share yours.

Please select or type your specialty

  Thank you

Newsletter

Subscribe to get the best content related to lymphoma & CLL delivered to your inbox