Group proposes new prognostic model for PTCL-NOS
“The discriminant power of the proposed model is superior to the others in terms of all of the statistical tests we adopted,” Dr Federico said.
| Model | c-Harrell*
(95% CI) |
D-Royston
(SE) |
R2 | AIC (95% CI) | AUC,
3-year OS |
| TCP | 0.666 (0.618-0.713) | 1.152 (0.191) | 0.31 (0.14-0.46) | 983 | 0.714 |
| PIT | 0.614 (0.563-0.664) | 0.750 (0.195) | 0.15 (0.06-0.31) | 1004 | 0.696 |
| IPI | 0.645 (0.594-0.696) | 0.883 (0.191) | 0.22 (0.08-0.38) | 987 | 0.704 |
| IPITCLP | 0.606 (0.549-0.663) | 0.631 (0.188) | 0.12 (0.03-0.28) | 1006 | 0.704 |
| mPIT | 0.640 (0.586-0.694) | 0.762 (0.170) | 0.16 (0.05-0.33) | 999 | 0.681 |
In closing, Dr Federico said the TCP model clearly defines risk groups in PTCL-NOS and identifies patients with relatively good prognosis.
However, there is a need for emerging biologic variables to be tested for prognostic value and included in prognostic tools to allow for better risk stratification. 
*c-Harrel: Harrell’s concordance index, 95% CI: confidence interval, D-Royston: Royston/Sauerbrei’s D statistic (Stat Med 2004 Mar 15, 23[5]:723-48), SE: standard error, R2: explained randomness, AIC: Akaike information criterion, AUC: area under the curve (according to Heagerty et al, Biometrics, 2000 Jun, 56[2]:337-44).
