Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Analysis compares prognostic scores for nodular lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin lymphoma, indicating implications for risk stratification.
The LP-IPS including four (age, stage, splenic involvement, hemoglobin; 1 point for each factor) and the GHSG score comprising three (sex, albumin, variant histopathological growth pattern (GP); 2 points for sex, 1 point for albumin and variant GP) risk factors represent prognostic tools for nodular lymphocyte-predominant Hodgkin lymphoma (NLPHL). A comparison of the scores has not been conducted until now. We thus performed an analysis comprising 583 NLPHL patients treated within GHSG studies. In addition to the LP-IPS and the original GHSG score, a modified GHSG score (GP DE replacing GP CDEF as risk factor variant GP) was also investigated. Low-risk vs high-risk groups were defined as 0-1 vs 2-4 points for the LP-IPS and 0-2 vs 3-4 points for the GHSG scores. Regarding progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), Cox regression analyses revealed hazard ratios (HR) for the high-risk vs low-risk groups of 2.71 (95%-CI: 1.76-4.18) and 8.24 (95%-CI: 3.7-18.34) for the LP-IPS, 1.59 (95%-CI: 1.04-2.45) and 2.45 (95%-CI: 1.1-5.45) for the original and 1.97 (95%-CI: 1.25-3.09) and 4.15 (95%-CI: 1.86-9.23) for the modified GHSG score. The combination of the LP-IPS and the modified GHSG score (low-risk/low-risk vs high-risk/high-risk) resulted in high HR for the high-risk/high-risk group in terms of both PFS (HR: 3.74; 95%-CI: 2.09-6.7) and OS (HR: 13.52; 95%-CI: 5.03-36.35). Thus, the LP-IPS represents the most reliable standalone risk score for NLPHL. The combination of the LP-IPS and the modified GHSG score may help to further characterize specific risk groups.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Eichenauer et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: