Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

KMJ : Kosin Medical Journal

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search
Advanced Search
mobile menu button

Articles

Page Path
HOME > Kosin Med J > Volume 30(1); 2015 > Article
Original Article
Therapeutic comparison of Surgery combined with chemotherapy and chemotherapy alone for Primary Gastrointestinal Lymphoma: A single center study
Je Hun Kim, Ho Sup Lee, Jun Seop Lee, Jin Young Lee, Su Young Kim, Cheol Su Kim, Joung Wook Yang, Ga In You
Kosin Medical Journal 2015;30(1):29-39.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7180/kmj.2015.30.1.29
Published online: January 20, 2015

Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Kosin University, Gospel Hospital, Busan, Korea

Corresponding Author：Ho Sup Lee, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Kosin University, Gospel Hospital, 262, Gamcheon-ro, Seo-gu, Busan, Korea TEX: +82-51-990-5820 FAX: +82-51-990-5821 E-mail: hs3667@hanmail.net
• Received: October 13, 2013   • Accepted: June 3, 2014

Copyright © 2015 Kosin University School of Medicine Proceedings

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

  • 2,393 Views
  • 5 Download
prev next
Full Article

Download PDF Download PDF

  • Objectives
    There is still no consensus on the optimal treatment for primary gastrointestinal lymphoma (PGIL). The aim of this study was to compare surgery combined with chemotherapy and chemotherapy alone in PGIL.
  • Methods
    We retrospectively reviewed and analyzed the treatment outcomes of 107 patients with primary gastrointestinal lymphoma diagnosed between March 1999 and December 2009 at Kosin University Gospel Hospital. Patients were divided into two groups: 35 patients who underwent surgery combined with chemotherapy (group A) and 72 patients who were treated with chemotherapy alone (group B). And we analyzed prognostic factors associated with short survival.
  • Results
    The 5-year progression free survival rates (PFS) of group A and B were 86.7% and 66.1%, respectively (P = 0.037), while the 5-year overall survival rates (OS) were 86.8% and 68.4%, respectively (P = 0.129). In multivariate analysis, Both PFS and OS were not changed by treatment strategies (surgery combined with chemotherapy or chemotherapy only). The international prognostic index (IPI) was the only independent predictive factor for PFS.
  • Conclusions
    In our study, surgery combined with chemotherapy and chemotherapy only make no difference of survival rate. And further randomized prospective studies are needed to confirm a treatment strategies at improving survival outcomes in PGIL patients.
  • Keywords: Chemotherapy; Primary gastrointestinal lymphoma; Surgery
Figure 1.
Progression free survival rates compared in patients according to the treatment strategy. Patients treated with surgery combined with chemotherapy were shown had superior 5-year progression free survival rates than chemotherapy only in patients with primary gastrointestinal lymphoma. (P = 0.037)
kmj-30-29f1.jpg
Figure 2.
Overall survival rates compared in patients according to the treatment strategy. There was no significant difference in 5-year overall survival rates between patients with primary gastrointestinal lymphoma treated with surgery combined with chemotherapy and chemotherapy only in patients with primary gastrointestinal lymphoma. (P = 0.129)
kmj-30-29f2.jpg
Table 1.
The classification of PGIL according to Ann-Arbor staging system
I Involvement of a single lymph node region (I) or a single extralymphatic organ or site (IE)
II Involvement of two or more lymph node regions on the same side of the diaphragm (II) or of an extralymphatic organ and its adjoining lymph node site (IIE)
III Involvement of lymph node sites o both sides of the diaphragm (III) or localized involvement of an extralymphatic site (IIIE), spleen (IIIS), or both (IIISE)
IV Diffuse or disseminated involvement of one or more extralymphatic organs with or without associated lymph node involvement
Table 2
Patient characteristics (N=107)
Characteristics/Category Number(%)
Age, years  
Median (range) 56 (21–79)
Sex  
Male 53 (49.5)
Female 54 (50.5)
Histologic type  
Diffuse large B cell lymphoma 69 (64.5)
Marginal zone B cell lymphoma 28 (26.2)
Peripheral T cell lymphoma 6 (5.6)
Other B cell lymphoma 4 (3.7)
Gastrointestinal tract involved site  
Stomach 68 (63.6)
Small intestine 26 (24.3)
Colon 13 (12.1)
Ann Arbor Stage  
IE 29 (27.1)
IIE 33 (30.8)
IIIE 25 (23.4)
IV 20 (18.7)
Bone marrow involvement  
Present 5 (4.7)
No 102 (95.3)
LDH  
< 450 IU/L 74 (69.2)
≥ 450 IU/L 33 (30.8)
ECOG performance status  
0–1 67 (62.6)
≥2 40 (37.4)
IPI risk,  
Low 48 (44.9)
Low intermediate 20 (18.7)
High intermediate 12 (11.2)
High 27 (25.2)
Treatment  
Surgery+ Chemotherapy group 35 (32.7)
Chemotherapy group 72 (67.3)
Rituximab  
Yes 33 (30.8)
No 74 (69.2)

ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; IPI, international prognostic index; and LDH, Lactate dehydrogenase

Table 3
Comparison of patients based on a treatment strategy
  Surgery+ Chemotherapy group (n=35) Chemotherapy group (n= 72) P-value
Age, years < 60 23 (65.7) 45 (62.5) 0.746
≥ 60 12 (34.3) 27 (37.5)  
Sex Male 16 (45.7) 37 (51.4) 0.582
Female 19 (54.3) 35 (48.6)  
Histology      
DLBCL 23 (65.7) 46 (63.9) 0.790
MZL 8 (22.9) 20 (27.8)  
Others 4 (11.4) 6 (8.3)  
Gastrointestinal tract involved site      
Stomach 14 (40.0) 54 (75.0) 0.685
Small intestine 16 (45.7) 10 (13.9)  
Colon 5 (14.3) 8 (11.1)  
Ann Arbor Stage      
IE 11 (31.4) 18 (25.0) 0.001
IIE 18 (51.4) 15 (20.8)  
IIIE 5 (14.3) 20 (27.8)  
IV 1 (2.9) 19 (26.4)  
Tumor size      
< 10 cm 19 (79.2) 37 (80.4) 0.900
≥ 10 cm 5 (20.8) 9 (19.6)  
Bone marrow involvement      
Present 0 (0.0) 5 (6.9) 0.110
No 35 (100.0) 67 (93.1)  
LDH      
< 450 IU/L 26 (74.3) 48 (66.7) 0.423
≥ 450 IU/L 9 (25.7) 24 (33.3)  
ECOG performance status      
0–1 22 (62.9) 45 (62.5) 0.971
≥2 13 (37.1) 27 (37.5)  
IPI risk      
Low 19 (54.3) 29 (40.3) 0.432
Low intermediate 7 (20.0) 13 (18.1)  
High intermediate 3 (8.6) 9 (12.5)  
High 6 (17.1) 21 (29.2)  
Rituximab      
Yes 8 (22.9) 25 (34.7) 0.212
No 27 (77.1) 47 (65.3)  

DLBCL, diffuse large B cell lymphoma; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; IPI, international prognostic index; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; and MZL, marginal zone B cell lymphoma.

Table 4
Univariate analysis of prognostic factors
  5-year PFS (%) p-value 5-year OS (%) p-value
Age, years       0.205
< 60 79.7 0.54 79.7
≥ 60 58.7   63.8
Sex       0.879
Male 72.8 0.677 76.1
Female 73.7   73.7
Histology       0.011
DLBCL 78.8 0.094 78.8
MZL 71.9   78.0
Others 44.4   44.4  
GI involve site Stomach Small intestine Colon 69.5 57.0 71.6 0.167 74.5 58.0 67.7 0.096
Ann Arbor Stage       0.026
IE and IIE 83.3 0.002 83.3
IIIE and IV 56.5   60.3
Tumor size       0.155
< 10 cm 73.5 0.161 77.1
≥ 10 cm 55.5   55.0
Bone marrow involvement       0.408
Present 53.3 0.522 53.3
No 74.3   75.8
LDH       < 0.001
< 450 IU/L 80.7 0.016 82.6
≥ 450 IU/L 52.6   52.1
ECOG performance status       0.158
0–1 78.9 0.016 79.0
≥2 62.7   67.0
IPI risk       < 0.001
Low and Low intermediate 84.3 < 0.001 84.4
High intermediate and High 50.3   54.6
Treatment       0.129
Surgery + Chemotherapy group 86.7 0.037 86.8
Chemotherapy group 66.1   68.4
Rituximab       0.475
Yes 81.2 0.118 76.7
No 62.9   68.8

BM, bone marrow; DLBCL, diffuse large B cell lymphoma; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; GI, gastrointestinal; IPI, international prognostic index; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; MZL, marginal zone B cell lymphoma; OS, Overall survival; and PFS, progression free survival

Table 5.
Multivariate analysis of prognostic factors
  PFS OS
RR 95% C.I. p-value RR 95% C.I. p-value
Histology DLBCL MZL Others       0.516 0.140–1.907 0.321
Ann Arbor Stage (%) IE and IIE IIIE and IV 0.918 0.321–2.631 0.874 0.576 0.214–1.549 0.274
LDH < 450 IU/L ≥ 450 IU/L 0.828 0.364–1.881 0.652 0.447 0.181–1.104 0.081
ECOG performance status 0–1 ≥2 1.339 0.519–3.449 0.546      
IPI risk Low and Low intermediate High intermediate and High 0.184 0.058–0.583 0.004 0.503 0.168–1.504 0.219
Treatment Surgery + Chemotherapy group Chemotherapy group 0.446 0.149–1.332 0.148      

ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; IPI, international prognostic index; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression free survival; RR, relative risk; and 95% C.I., 95% confidence interval.

  • 1. LEE YJ, Lee JH. Gastrointestinal lymphoma, Korean J Helicobacter Up Gastrointest Res 2012;12:158–65.
  • 2. d'Amore F, Brincker H, Gr⊘nbaek K, Thorling K, Pedersen M, Jensen MK, et al. Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma of the gastrointestinal tract: a population-based analysis of incidence, geographic distribution, clinicopathologic presentation features, and prognosis. Danish Lymphoma Study Group, J Clin Oncol 1994;12:1673–84.
  • 3. Koch P, del Valle F, Berdel WE, Willich NA, Reers B, Hiddemann W, et al. Primary gastrointestinal non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: I. Anatomic and histologic distribution, clinical features, and survival data of 371 patients registered in the German Multicenter Study, J Clin Oncol 2001;19:3861–73.
  • 4. Psyrri A, Papageorgiou S, Economopoulos T. Primary extranodal lymphomas of stomach: clinical presentation, diagnostic pitfalls and management, Ann Oncol 2008;19:1992–9.
  • 5. Kim JM, Ko YH, Lee SS, Huh J, Kang CS, Kim CW, et al. WHO classification of malignant lymphomas in Korea: report of the third nationwide study, Korean J Pathol 2011;45:254–60.
  • 6. Wündisch T, Thiede C, Morgner A, Dempfle A, Günther A, Liu H, et al. Long-term follow-up of gastric MALT lymphoma after Helicobacter pylori eradication. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:8018–24.ArticlePubMed
  • 7. Wündisch T, Mösch C, Neubauer A, Stolte M. Helicobacter pylori eradication in gastric mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma: Results of a 196-patient series, Leuk Lymphoma 2006;47:2110–4.
  • 8. Koch P, Probst A, Berdel WE, Willich NA, Reinartz G, Brockmann J, et al. Treatment Results in Localized Primary Gastric Lymphoma: Data of Patients Registered Within the German Multicenter Study(GIT NHL 02/96). J Clin Oncol 2005;23:7050–9.ArticlePubMed
  • 9. Binn M, Ruskone-Fourmestraux A, Lepage E, Haio-un C, Delmer A. Surgical resection plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone: comparison of two strategies to treat diffuse large B-cell gastric lymphoma. Ann Oncol 2003;14:1751–7.ArticlePubMed
  • 10. Jezers ek Novakovic B, Vovk M, Juznicsetina T. A single-center study of treatment outcomes and survival in patients with primary gastric lymphomas between 1990 and 2003. Ann Hematol 2006;85:849–56.ArticlePubMed
  • 11. Avilés A, Nambo MJ, Neri N, Talavera A, Cleto S. Mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphoma of the stomach: results of a controlled clinical trial. Med Oncol 2005;22:57–62.ArticlePubMed
  • 12. Medina-Franco H, Germes SS, Maldonado CL. Prognostic factors in primary gastric lymphoma, Ann Surg Oncol 2007;14:2239–45.
  • 13. Kim SJ, Kang HJ, Kim JS, Oh SY, Choi CW, Lee SI, et al. Comparison of treatment strategies for patients with intestinal diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: surgical resection followed by chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone. Blood 2011;117:1958–65.ArticlePubMed
  • 14. Cirocchi R, Farinella E, Trastulli S, Cavaliere D, Covarelli P, Listorti C, et al, Surgical treatment of primary gastrointestinal lymphoma. World J Surg Oncol 2011;9:145.PubMedPMC
  • 15. Lee J, Kim WS, Kim K, Ahn JS, Jung CW, Lim HY, et al. Prospective clinical study of surgical resection followed by CHOP in localized intestinal diffuse large B cell lymphoma. Leuk Res 2007;31:359–64.ArticlePubMed
  • 16. Zinzani PL, Magagnoli M, Pagliani G, Bendandi M, Gherlinzoni F, Merla E, et al. Primary intestinal lymphoma: clinical and therapeutic features of 32 patients. Haematologica 1997;82:305–8.PubMed
  • 17. Cheung MC, Housri N, Ogilvie MP, Sola JE, Koniaris LG. Surgery does not adversely affect survival in primary gastrointestinal lymphoma. J Surg Oncol 2009;100:59–64.ArticlePubMed
  • 18. Beaton C, Davies M, Beynon J. The management of primary small bowel and colon lymphoma―a review. Int J Colorectal Dis 2012;27:555–63.ArticlePubMed
  • 19. Lee J, Kim WS, Kim K, Ko YH, Kim JJ, Kim YH, et al. Intestinal lymphoma: exploration of the prognostic factors and the optimal treatment. Leuk Lymphoma 2004;45:339–44.ArticlePubMed
  • 20. Daum S, Ullrich R, Heise W, Dederke B, Foss HD, Stein H, et al. Intestinal non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: a multicenter prospective clinical study from the German Study Group on Intestinal non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:2740–6.ArticlePubMed
  • 21. Azab MB, Henry-Amar M, Rougier P, Bognel C, Theodore C, Carde P, et al. Prognostic factors in primary gastrointestinal non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. A multivariate analysis, report of 106 cases, and review of the literature. Cancer 1989;64:1208–17.ArticlePubMed
  • 22. Gou HF, Zang J, Jiang M, Yang Y, Cao D, Chen XC. Clinical prognostic analysis of 116 patients with primary intestinal non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Med Oncol 2012;29:227–34.ArticlePubMed

Figure & Data

References

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  

      • PubReader PubReader
      • ePub LinkePub Link
      • Cite
        CITE
        export Copy
        Close
      • Download Citation
        Download Citation
        Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.
        Format:
        • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
        • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
        Include:
        • Citation for the content below
        Therapeutic comparison of Surgery combined with chemotherapy and chemotherapy alone for Primary Gastrointestinal Lymphoma: A single center study
        Kosin Med J. 2015;30(1):29-39.   Published online January 20, 2015
        DOI: https://doi.org/10.7180/kmj.2015.30.1.29
        Close
      • XML DownloadXML Download
      Figure
      • 0
      • 1
      Therapeutic comparison of Surgery combined with chemotherapy and chemotherapy alone for Primary Gastrointestinal Lymphoma: A single center study
      Image Image
      Figure 1. Progression free survival rates compared in patients according to the treatment strategy. Patients treated with surgery combined with chemotherapy were shown had superior 5-year progression free survival rates than chemotherapy only in patients with primary gastrointestinal lymphoma. (P = 0.037)
      Figure 2. Overall survival rates compared in patients according to the treatment strategy. There was no significant difference in 5-year overall survival rates between patients with primary gastrointestinal lymphoma treated with surgery combined with chemotherapy and chemotherapy only in patients with primary gastrointestinal lymphoma. (P = 0.129)

      Figure 1.

      Figure 2.

      Therapeutic comparison of Surgery combined with chemotherapy and chemotherapy alone for Primary Gastrointestinal Lymphoma: A single center study

      The classification of PGIL according to Ann-Arbor staging system

      I Involvement of a single lymph node region (I) or a single extralymphatic organ or site (IE)
      II Involvement of two or more lymph node regions on the same side of the diaphragm (II) or of an extralymphatic organ and its adjoining lymph node site (IIE)
      III Involvement of lymph node sites o both sides of the diaphragm (III) or localized involvement of an extralymphatic site (IIIE), spleen (IIIS), or both (IIISE)
      IV Diffuse or disseminated involvement of one or more extralymphatic organs with or without associated lymph node involvement

      Patient characteristics (N=107)

      Characteristics/Category Number(%)
      Age, years  
      Median (range) 56 (21–79)
      Sex  
      Male 53 (49.5)
      Female 54 (50.5)
      Histologic type  
      Diffuse large B cell lymphoma 69 (64.5)
      Marginal zone B cell lymphoma 28 (26.2)
      Peripheral T cell lymphoma 6 (5.6)
      Other B cell lymphoma 4 (3.7)
      Gastrointestinal tract involved site  
      Stomach 68 (63.6)
      Small intestine 26 (24.3)
      Colon 13 (12.1)
      Ann Arbor Stage  
      IE 29 (27.1)
      IIE 33 (30.8)
      IIIE 25 (23.4)
      IV 20 (18.7)
      Bone marrow involvement  
      Present 5 (4.7)
      No 102 (95.3)
      LDH  
      < 450 IU/L 74 (69.2)
      ≥ 450 IU/L 33 (30.8)
      ECOG performance status  
      0–1 67 (62.6)
      ≥2 40 (37.4)
      IPI risk,  
      Low 48 (44.9)
      Low intermediate 20 (18.7)
      High intermediate 12 (11.2)
      High 27 (25.2)
      Treatment  
      Surgery+ Chemotherapy group 35 (32.7)
      Chemotherapy group 72 (67.3)
      Rituximab  
      Yes 33 (30.8)
      No 74 (69.2)

      Comparison of patients based on a treatment strategy

        Surgery+ Chemotherapy group (n=35) Chemotherapy group (n= 72) P-value
      Age, years < 60 23 (65.7) 45 (62.5) 0.746
      ≥ 60 12 (34.3) 27 (37.5)  
      Sex Male 16 (45.7) 37 (51.4) 0.582
      Female 19 (54.3) 35 (48.6)  
      Histology      
      DLBCL 23 (65.7) 46 (63.9) 0.790
      MZL 8 (22.9) 20 (27.8)  
      Others 4 (11.4) 6 (8.3)  
      Gastrointestinal tract involved site      
      Stomach 14 (40.0) 54 (75.0) 0.685
      Small intestine 16 (45.7) 10 (13.9)  
      Colon 5 (14.3) 8 (11.1)  
      Ann Arbor Stage      
      IE 11 (31.4) 18 (25.0) 0.001
      IIE 18 (51.4) 15 (20.8)  
      IIIE 5 (14.3) 20 (27.8)  
      IV 1 (2.9) 19 (26.4)  
      Tumor size      
      < 10 cm 19 (79.2) 37 (80.4) 0.900
      ≥ 10 cm 5 (20.8) 9 (19.6)  
      Bone marrow involvement      
      Present 0 (0.0) 5 (6.9) 0.110
      No 35 (100.0) 67 (93.1)  
      LDH      
      < 450 IU/L 26 (74.3) 48 (66.7) 0.423
      ≥ 450 IU/L 9 (25.7) 24 (33.3)  
      ECOG performance status      
      0–1 22 (62.9) 45 (62.5) 0.971
      ≥2 13 (37.1) 27 (37.5)  
      IPI risk      
      Low 19 (54.3) 29 (40.3) 0.432
      Low intermediate 7 (20.0) 13 (18.1)  
      High intermediate 3 (8.6) 9 (12.5)  
      High 6 (17.1) 21 (29.2)  
      Rituximab      
      Yes 8 (22.9) 25 (34.7) 0.212
      No 27 (77.1) 47 (65.3)  

      Univariate analysis of prognostic factors

        5-year PFS (%) p-value 5-year OS (%) p-value
      Age, years       0.205
      < 60 79.7 0.54 79.7
      ≥ 60 58.7   63.8
      Sex       0.879
      Male 72.8 0.677 76.1
      Female 73.7   73.7
      Histology       0.011
      DLBCL 78.8 0.094 78.8
      MZL 71.9   78.0
      Others 44.4   44.4  
      GI involve site Stomach Small intestine Colon 69.5 57.0 71.6 0.167 74.5 58.0 67.7 0.096
      Ann Arbor Stage       0.026
      IE and IIE 83.3 0.002 83.3
      IIIE and IV 56.5   60.3
      Tumor size       0.155
      < 10 cm 73.5 0.161 77.1
      ≥ 10 cm 55.5   55.0
      Bone marrow involvement       0.408
      Present 53.3 0.522 53.3
      No 74.3   75.8
      LDH       < 0.001
      < 450 IU/L 80.7 0.016 82.6
      ≥ 450 IU/L 52.6   52.1
      ECOG performance status       0.158
      0–1 78.9 0.016 79.0
      ≥2 62.7   67.0
      IPI risk       < 0.001
      Low and Low intermediate 84.3 < 0.001 84.4
      High intermediate and High 50.3   54.6
      Treatment       0.129
      Surgery + Chemotherapy group 86.7 0.037 86.8
      Chemotherapy group 66.1   68.4
      Rituximab       0.475
      Yes 81.2 0.118 76.7
      No 62.9   68.8

      Multivariate analysis of prognostic factors

        PFS OS
      RR 95% C.I. p-value RR 95% C.I. p-value
      Histology DLBCL MZL Others       0.516 0.140–1.907 0.321
      Ann Arbor Stage (%) IE and IIE IIIE and IV 0.918 0.321–2.631 0.874 0.576 0.214–1.549 0.274
      LDH < 450 IU/L ≥ 450 IU/L 0.828 0.364–1.881 0.652 0.447 0.181–1.104 0.081
      ECOG performance status 0–1 ≥2 1.339 0.519–3.449 0.546      
      IPI risk Low and Low intermediate High intermediate and High 0.184 0.058–0.583 0.004 0.503 0.168–1.504 0.219
      Treatment Surgery + Chemotherapy group Chemotherapy group 0.446 0.149–1.332 0.148      
      Table 1. The classification of PGIL according to Ann-Arbor staging system

      Table 2 Patient characteristics (N=107)

      ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; IPI, international prognostic index; and LDH, Lactate dehydrogenase

      Table 3 Comparison of patients based on a treatment strategy

      DLBCL, diffuse large B cell lymphoma; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; IPI, international prognostic index; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; and MZL, marginal zone B cell lymphoma.

      Table 4 Univariate analysis of prognostic factors

      BM, bone marrow; DLBCL, diffuse large B cell lymphoma; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; GI, gastrointestinal; IPI, international prognostic index; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; MZL, marginal zone B cell lymphoma; OS, Overall survival; and PFS, progression free survival

      Table 5. Multivariate analysis of prognostic factors

      ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; IPI, international prognostic index; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression free survival; RR, relative risk; and 95% C.I., 95% confidence interval.

      Table 1.

      Table 2

      Table 3

      Table 4

      Table 5.

      KMJ : Kosin Medical Journal
      © Kosin University College of Medicine.
      TOP