ArticleRadiology and oncology2025
Are there clinically relevant prognostic factors in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma beyond International Prognostic Index?
Article in Radiology and oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Soluble E-Cadherin as a New Prognostic Biomarker Able to Predict Survival in Newly Diagnosed Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma.Biomolecules · 2026Article
- Molecular international prognostic index prognostic model in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.Discover oncology · 2026Article
- Elevated circulating CD10Annals of hematology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) has variable prognosis, with only 50 to 60% of patients cured by standard first line treatment. Identifying patients unlikely to benefit from standard first line therapy is therefore crucial. Schmitz's study identified four molecular subtypes of DLBCL with differing prognoses: MCD, BN2, N1, and EZB, with BN2 and EZB showing more favorable outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the Archer FusionPlex Lymphoma Assay in identifying the newly defined genetic subtypes of DLBCL, while also exploring the association between immunohistochemical (IHC) and next-generation sequencing (NGS) methods for classifying the cell of origin (COO) and assessing their predictive value for patient survival. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe classified 131 DLBCL patients using Hans algorithm into GCB (germinal center B-cell-like) and ABC (activated B-cell-like) subtypes, and with NGS applying Archer FusionPlex lymphoma assay into ABC, GCB, unclassified, and into Schmitz's novel genetic subtypes. A mutational analysis of just 7 genes (
results35.9% of patients were successfully classified into new genetic subtypes, with acceptable consistency between IHC and NGS method for COO determination. However, the new genetic subtype classification by NGS did not correlate with overall survival, nor did the COO classifications by IHC or NGS. The inclusion of these classifications also did not improve the predictive value of models compared to the basic model based on the International Prognostic Index (IPI) only.
conclusionsThe Archer FusionPlex Lymphoma assay showed a somewhat lower detection rate of novel genetic subtypes compared to reports based on exome sequencing, yet identified novel genetic subtypes in over one-third of patients. However, an in-depth STRATOS statistical analysis did not confirm its predictive value for DLBCL prognosis, likely due to factors like patient selection and sample size limitations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.