Validation of the simplified International Prognostic Score3 in a Hellenic cohort of patients with advanced‐stage Hodgkin‐lymphoma

Abstract

Additional supporting information may be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of the article. Data S1. Supplementary data. We read with great interest the short report on the validation of the simplified International Prognostic Score 3(IPS-3) for advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma (AS-HL) in a population-based British Columbia series. 1 Given that up to onethird of patients with AS-HL will relapse or progress during or after initial treatment, the early and reliable identification of these patients remains crucial. However, this has not been achieved yet, despite the recognition of numerous clinical and biological prognostic factors. 2 The original IPS (IPS-7) [male sex, age ≥45 years, stage IV, haemoglobin <105 g/l,

Expression of the novel tumour suppressor sterile alpha motif and HD domain‐containing protein 1 is an independent adverse prognostic factor in classical Hodgkin lymphoma

“…3 However, most models, including the International Prognostic Score (IPS), fail to identify a sizable fraction of patients whose chance of cure is less than 50%. [4][5][6] Although many biological prognostic factors have been described, they have not been routinely used in clinical practice. 3 Therefore, there is a clinical need of novel biomarkers related to the biology of HL, which predict clinical outcome, allow stratification of patients for optimal therapy and provide new targets for investigational therapy.…”

A new prognostic model including platelet/lymphocyte ratio and International Prognostic Score 3 for freedom from progression in patients with previously untreated advanced classical Hodgkin lymphoma

“…in 2015 and was adequately validated by other studies 6,7 . However, neither IPS‐7 nor IPS‐3 could identify a very low‐risk subgroup or a very high‐risk subgroup 4–7 …”

“…4,5 A simpler prognostic score IPS-3, comprising only three of the seven IPS-7 indicators (stage IV, age ≥45 years, and hemoglobin <105 g/L) was proposed by Diefenbach et al 4 in 2015 and was adequately validated by other studies. 6,7 However, neither IPS-7 nor IPS-3 could identify a very low-risk subgroup or a very high-risk subgroup. [4][5][6][7] A new risk stratification tool incorporating clinical features and simple laboratory variables would be of help in real-life risk assessment and easily examined by other studies.…”

“…6,7 However, neither IPS-7 nor IPS-3 could identify a very low-risk subgroup or a very high-risk subgroup. [4][5][6][7] A new risk stratification tool incorporating clinical features and simple laboratory variables would be of help in real-life risk assessment and easily examined by other studies. In recent years, some easily available laboratory parameters have been proved to be prognostic factors, such as lymphocyte/monocyte ratio (LMR), 8,9 platelet/lymphocyte ratio (PLR), 10,42 serum beta-2 microglobulin (β2M) concentration, 11 and so on.…”

“…A simpler prognostic score IPS‐3, comprising only three of the seven IPS‐7 indicators (stage IV, age ≥45 years, and hemoglobin <105 g/L) was proposed by Diefenbach et al 4 . in 2015 and was adequately validated by other studies 6,7 . However, neither IPS‐7 nor IPS‐3 could identify a very low‐risk subgroup or a very high‐risk subgroup 4–7 …”