2016
DOI: 10.14735/amko2016295
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Staging and Treatment Response Evaluation in Malignant Lymphomas – Czech Lymphoma Study Group Recommendations According to Criteria Revised in 2014 (Lugano Classification)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
(83 reference statements)
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Risk stratification was assigned according to international prognostic index (IPI) scores (low risk: 0-1; low-intermediate risk: 2; high-intermediate risk: 3; high risk: 4-5). The responses of treatments were defined according to the International Working Group response criteria (published in 2007) 13 or revised response criteria (published as the Lugano classification, 2014) 14.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Risk stratification was assigned according to international prognostic index (IPI) scores (low risk: 0-1; low-intermediate risk: 2; high-intermediate risk: 3; high risk: 4-5). The responses of treatments were defined according to the International Working Group response criteria (published in 2007) 13 or revised response criteria (published as the Lugano classification, 2014) 14.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The involvement of the spleen and other extranodal sites was determined using diagnostic tools such as CT, enhanced CT, and PET-CT. Treatment response was evaluated according to the 2014 Lugano classification criteria ( 14 ). The response was categorized as complete remission (CR), partial remission (PR), stable disease (SD), or progressive disease (PD).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…OS was defined as the time interval from the first day of the regimen to death or the final follow‐up. Treatment efficacy was assessed using the revised Cheson Standard Response 15 …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Treatment efficacy was assessed using the revised Cheson Standard Response. 15 All AEs were reported from cycle 1, day 1 until 30 days after the last dose of the study drug, regardless of the relationship to treatment. AEs were graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, Version 5.0.…”
Section: Evaluation Criteriamentioning
confidence: 99%