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.
An expert panel hosted by
Customizing first-line BTK inhibitors for CLL
with Gilles Salles, Paolo Ghia, and Francesc Bosch
Wednesday, October 23, 2024
18:30-19:30 BST
This independent educational activity is supported by Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company and Janssen Biotech. All content is developed independently by the faculty. The funder is allowed no influence on the content of this activity.
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.
Accurate prognostication is important for the optimal treatment selection in patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma.1 The International Prognostic Score (IPS)-7 is typically used to risk-stratify patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma (aHL).1 The IPS-3 model was developed to simplify the IPS-7 while retaining its predictive capabilities. Recently, the aHL International Prognostic Index (A-HIPI) was developed to improve prognostication compared with the IPS models.1
New predictive models developed using machine learning (ML) have the potential to further improve prognostication. Jørgensen et al.1 recently developed and validated an ML-based survival prediction model for patients with aHL and published the findings in Journal of Clinical Oncology Clinical Cancer Informatics. Below, we summarize the key points.
Table 1. Performance of the ML, IPS-3, IPS-7, and A-HIPI models in the development and validation cohorts*
Model |
Development cohort (n = 707) |
Validation cohort (n = 760) |
||||||
OS |
PFS |
OS |
PFS |
|||||
IBS |
C-index |
IBS |
C-index |
IBS |
C-index |
IBS |
C-index |
|
ML |
0.073 |
0.789 |
0.141 |
0.665 |
0.049 |
0.749 |
0.085 |
0.691 |
IPS-3 |
0.085 |
0.650 |
0.149 |
0.576 |
0.054 |
0.663 |
0.078 |
0.64 |
IPS-7 |
0.087 |
0.608 |
0.151 |
0.549 |
0.052 |
0.700 |
0.077 |
0.672 |
A-HIPI |
0.076 |
0.768 |
0.142 |
0.649 |
0.052 |
0.741 |
0.091 |
0.677 |
A-HIPI, advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma international prognostic index; C-index, concordance index; IBS, integrated Brier score; IPS, International Prognostic Score; ML, machine learning; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival. |
Figure 1. 5-year survival outcomes of high-risk patients in the ML model and IPS-7*
IPS, International Prognostic Score; ML, machine learning; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival.
*Data from Jørgensen, et al.1
Key learnings |
|
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
Your opinion matters
Subscribe to get the best content related to lymphoma & CLL delivered to your inbox