Primary Central Nervous System Lymphoma: The Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Prognostic Model

Abstract

Age and performance status were the only variables identified on standard multivariate analysis. Cut point analysis of age determined that patients age < or = 50 years had significantly improved outcome compared with older patients. RPA of 282 patients identified three distinct prognostic classes: class 1 (patients < 50 years), class 2 (patients > or =50; Karnofsky performance score [KPS] > or = 70) and class 3 (patients > or = 50; KPS < 70). These three classes significantly distinguished outcome with regard to both overall and failure-free survival. Analysis of the RTOG data set confirmed the validity of this classification. CONCLUSION The MSKCC prognostic score is a simple, statistically powerful model with universal applicability to patients with newly diagnosed PCNSL. We recommend that it be adopted for the management of newly diagnosed patients and incorporated into the design of prospective clinical trials.

Patterns of response and relapse in primary CNS lymphomas after first-line chemotherapy: imaging analysis of the ANOCEF-GOELAMS prospective randomized trial

“…In the present study, deep location was not a prognostic factor, whereas infratentorial involvement independently predicted survival. Of note, this absence of prognostic impact of deep locations was in line with the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center prognostic model, 16 where no neuroradiological characteristics were prognostic.…”

Early relapses in primary CNS lymphoma after response to polychemotherapy without intraventricular treatment: results of a phase II study

“…However, time to treatment failure and response duration in the whole group as well as response duration in responding patients were significantly lower with a significance level of p < 0.01. In order to analyze whether this difference was due to an imbalance of patients with worse clinical prognosis -independent of treatment -we evaluated patients of both trials for established prognostic factors [11,12]. No such differences could be detected.…”

“…The current study population and patients < 60 years of age treated in the former trial with systemic and intraventricular chemotherapy [3] were analyzed for factors proposed to have prognostic significance [11,12].…”

“…In order to analyze, if differences in prognostic scores [11,12] may have influenced the different outcomes in the current versus the historical study population, these factors were evaluated. Data to classify patients according to a prognostic score as published by the IELSG [11], were completed for ten out of 18 patients of the current trial and for 24 out of 30 patients of the former trial.…”

“…Comparing the different risk scores (IELSG score 0-1: low risk; 2-3: intermediate risk; 4-5: high risk) there was a trend towards a lower risk of the patients in the current trial. All patients from both study groups could also be classified according to the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre prognostic model [12]. Again, a trend towards a better prognostic score for the patients in the current treatment trial could be found when applying this model.…”