Introduction The International Prognostic Index (IPI, NEJM, 1993) has guided risk stratification in large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) for over three decades. Its simplicity and clinical utility have driven its widespread adoption, even in the era of precision medicine. However, the prognostic value of the IPI and its components may not be uniform across the age spectrum of LBCL patients. We evaluated the contemporary prognostic performance of the IPI in a large international cohort, focusing on age-stratified performance and the relative contributions of its individual components, grouped as patient- and disease-related factors.

Methods We harmonized and pooled data from 6,941 patients with newly diagnosed systemic LBCL treated with R-CHOP-like regimens (R-CHOP, R-miniCHOP, DA-EPOCH-R, R-CHOEP, R-CHOP+X) with complete IPI data from three prospective cohorts: NiHiL (Czech Republic, n=4,590; 2010–2023), LEO (USA, n=1,789; 2015–2020), and MER (USA, n=562; 2010–2015). IPI components included age, ECOG performance status (PS) as patient-related, and Ann Arbor clinical stage, serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and extranodal (EN) involvement as disease-related factors. Prognostic performance was evaluated using multivariable Cox regression models and C-statistics. Age-stratified analysis was performed for: ≤40 years (7%; n=492), 41–60 years (28%; n=1,909), 61–80 years (59%; n=4,080), and >80 years (7%; n=460). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS).

Results In the pooled cohort, the median age was 66 years (range 18–95). Compared to the original IPI cohort (n=3,273), our cohort was older (age >60 years: 66% vs 41%) but otherwise comparable: ECOG PS 2–4 (25% vs 24%), clinical stage III–IV (63% vs 66%), elevated LDH (60% vs 52%), and >1 EN involvement (32% vs 30%).

In multivariable analysis, age (≤60 vs >60 years) was the strongest predictor of OS (HR=2.78; vs HR=1.96 in original IPI report), followed by ECOG PS (HR=2.07; vs 1.80), clinical stage (HR=1.50; vs 1.47), LDH (HR=1.41; vs 1.85, all P<0.01); EN involvement was not significant (P=0.50, HR=1.03 vs 1.48). Risk group distribution shifted from the original IPI: 28% were low-risk (0–1 factor; vs 35%), 23% low-intermediate (2; vs 27%), 24% high-intermediate (3; vs 22%), and 25% high-risk (4–5; vs 16%). Corresponding 2-year OS rates were 95%, 86%, 78%, and 63%, superior to those of the original IPI cohort (87%, 67%, 55%, 44%; pre-rituximab era).

Age was associated with an increasing risk of mortality, with a more pronounced rise beyond 60 years. In a piecewise Cox model, the HR per year was 1.04 for ages ≤60 (linear), 1.05 for 61–69 (accelerated), and 1.06 for ≥70 years (exponential, all P<0.01). ECOG PS retained prognostic significance across age groups: HRs were 1.87 (P=0.06) for ≤40 years, 1.63 (P<0.01) for 41–60, 2.22 (P<0.01) for 61–80, and 1.43 (P<0.01) for >80 years. The strength of other IPI components declined with age. Clinical stage showed decreasing impact: HR 2.08 (P=0.09), 1.97 (P<0.01), 1.49 (P<0.01), and 1.31 (P=0.05). LDH was significant only up to age 80 years: HRs were 2.07 (P=0.04), 1.96 (P<0.01), 1.32 (P<0.01), and 1.21 (P=0.13). EN involvement was non-significant across all groups: HRs were 1.37 (P=0.34), 1.26 (P=0.05), 0.98 (P=0.74), and 1.06 (P=0.67). The IPI C-statistics was 0.676 overall and declined with age: ≤40 years (0.708), 41–60 years (0.683), 61–80 years (0.641), and >80 years (0.598).

We next stratified the IPI factors into patient- (age, ECOG PS) and disease-related (clinical stage, LDH, EN involvement). In patients ≤40 years, disease-related factors outperformed patient-related (C-index 0.693 vs 0.602), as in the 41–60 group (C-index 0.677 vs 0.589). In patients aged 61–80, predictive values were comparable (0.613 vs 0.622). In >80-year-olds, both declined substantially (0.580 vs 0.568).

Conclusion The IPI remains a valuable prognostic tool in LBCL, particularly among younger patients. However, its overall predictive accuracy declines with age. In patients ≤60 years old, prognosis is primarily driven by disease-related factors, suggesting a role for molecular classifiers to enhance risk stratification. In older patients, incorporation of additional patient-level factors, such as comorbidities and nutritional status could be considered. These findings underscore the need for more individualized prognostic tools for LBCL patients.

Funding: NU21-03-00411, P50 CA97274, U01 CA195568, Charles University Haematology-Oncology Cooperatio Program.

This content is only available as a PDF.
2025
Sign in via your Institution