section name header

Authors

Chapter Summary

Cancers Staged Using This Staging System

Adult Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphomas

Cancers Not Staged Using This Staging System

These histopathologic types of cancer…Are staged according to the classification for…and can be found in chapter…
Ocular adnexal lymphomaOcular adnexal lymphoma71
Pediatric lymphomaPediatric lymphoma80
Primary cutaneous LymphomaPrimary cutaneous lymphoma81
Multiple myelomaPlasma cell myeloma82

Summary of Changes

ChangeDetails of ChangeLevel of Evidence
Ann Arbor stagingThe Cotswold modification1 of the Ann Arbor staging system2,3 has been updated to the Lugano classification4I
A and B Classification (Symptoms)B symptoms were eliminated for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (retained for Hodgkin lymphoma).I
X subscriptX subscript for bulk was eliminated. The diameter of the largest mass must be recorded.I
Stage IIIThe extension of disease into extralymphatic sites (E lesions) was eliminated from Stage III; any extralymphatic involvement with nodal disease above and below the diaphragm is Stage IV.I
Stage IIISInvolvement of the spleen no longer part of stage grouping.I
Stage IIAlthough four staging categories are retained, the concept of the Lugano classification is to divide patients into limited and advanced stages. Stage II bulky is variably categorized as limited- or advanced-stage based on the histology and prognostic factors.I
ImagingPosteroanterior chest X-ray is no longer required for the determination of bulk in Hodgkin or non-Hodgkin lymphoma.I

ICD-O-3 Topography Codes

CodeDescription
C00.0External upper lip
C00.1External lower lip
C00.2External lip, NOS
C00.3Mucosa of upper lip
C00.4Mucosa of lower lip
C00.5Mucosa of lip, NOS
C00.6Commissure of lip
C00.8Overlapping lesion of lip
C00.9Lip, NOS
C01.9Base of tongue, NOS
C02.0Dorsal surface of tongue, NOS
C02.1Border of tongue
C02.2Ventral surface of tongue, NOS
C02.3Anterior 2/3 of tongue, NOS
C02.4Lingual tonsil
C02.8Overlapping lesion of tongue
C02.9Tongue, NOS
C03.0Upper gum
C03.1Lower gum
C03.9Gum, NOS
C04.0Anterior floor of mouth
C04.1Lateral floor of mouth
C04.8Overlapping lesion of floor of mouth
C04.9Floor of mouth, NOS
C05.0Hard palate
C05.1Soft palate, NOS
C05.2Uvula
C05.8Overlapping lesion of palate
C05.9Palate, NOS
C06.0Cheek mucosa
C06.1Vestibule of mouth
C06.2Retromolar area
C06.8Overlapping lesion of other and unspecified parts of mouth
C06.9Mouth, NOS
C07.9Parotid gland
C08.0Submandibular gland
C08.1Sublingual gland
C08.1Sublingual gland duct
C08.8Overlapping lesion of major salivary glands
C08.9Major salivary gland, NOS
C09.0Tonsillar fossa
C09.1Tonsillar pillar
C09.8Overlapping lesion of tonsil
C09.9Tonsil, NOS
C10.0Vallecula
C10.1Anterior surface of epiglottis
C10.2Lateral wall of oropharynx
C10.3Posterior wall of oropharynx
C10.4Branchial cleft
C10.8Overlapping lesion of oropharynx
C10.9Oropharynx, NOS
C11.0Superior wall of nasopharynx
C11.1Posterior wall of nasopharynx
C11.2Lateral wall of nasopharynx
C11.3Anterior wall of nasopharynx
C11.8Overlapping lesion of nasopharynx
C11.9Nasopharynx, NOS
C12.9Pyriform sinus
C13.0Postcricoid region
C13.1Hypopharyngeal aspect of aryepiglottic fold
C13.2Posterior wall of hypopharynx
C13.8Overlapping lesion of hypopharynx
C13.9Hypopharynx, NOS
C14.0Pharynx, NOS
C14.2Waldeyer ring
C14.8Overlapping lesion of lip, oral cavity and pharynx
C15.0Cervical esophagus
C15.1Thoracic esophagus
C15.2Abdominal esophagus
C15.3Upper third of esophagus
C15.4Middle third of esophagus
C15.5Lower third of esophagus
C15.8Overlapping lesion of esophagus
C15.9Esophagus, NOS
C16.0Cardia, NOS
C16.1Fundus of stomach
C16.2Body of stomach
C16.3Gastric antrum
C16.4Pylorus
C16.5Lesser curvature of stomach, NOS
C16.6Greater curvature of stomach, NOS
C16.8Overlapping lesion of stomach
C16.9Stomach, NOS
C17.0Duodenum
C17.1Jejunum
C17.2Ileum
C17.3Meckel diverticulum
C17.8Overlapping lesion of small intestine
C17.9Small intestine, NOS
C18.0Cecum
C18.1Appendix
C18.2Ascending colon
C18.3Hepatic flexure of colon
C18.4Transverse colon
C18.5Splenic flexure of colon
C18.6Descending colon
C18.7Sigmoid colon
C18.8Overlapping lesion of colon
C18.9Colon, NOS
C19.9Rectosigmoid junction
C20.9Rectum, NOS
C21.0Anus, NOS
C21.1Anal canal
C21.2Cloacogenic zone
C21.8Overlapping lesion of rectum, anus and anal canal
C22.0Liver
C22.1Intrahepatic bile duct
C23.9Gallbladder
C24.0Extrahepatic bile duct
C24.1Ampulla of Vater
C24.8Overlapping lesion of biliary tract
C24.9Biliary tract, NOS
C25.0Head of pancreas
C25.1Body of pancreas
C25.2Tail of pancreas
C25.3Pancreatic duct
C25.4Islets of Langerhans
C25.7Other specified parts of pancreas
C25.8Overlapping lesion of pancreas
C25.9Pancreas, NOS
C26.0Intestinal tract, NOS
C26.8Overlapping lesion of digestive system
C26.9Gastrointestinal tract, NOS
C30.0Nasal cavity
C30.1Middle ear
C31.0Maxillary sinus
C31.1Ethmoid sinus
C31.2Frontal sinus
C31.3Sphenoid sinus
C31.8Overlapping lesion of accessory sinuses
C31.9Accessory sinus, NOS
C32.0Glottis
C32.1Supraglottis
C32.2Subglottis
C32.3Laryngeal cartilage
C32.8Overlapping lesion of larynx
C32.9Larynx, NOS
C33.9Trachea
C34.0Main bronchus
C34.1Upper lobe, lung
C34.2Middle lobe, lung
C34.3Lower lobe, lung
C34.8Overlapping lesion of lung
C34.9Lung, NOS
C37.9Thymus
C38.0Heart
C38.1Anterior mediastinum
C38.2Posterior mediastinum
C38.3Mediastinum, NOS
C38.4Pleura, NOS
C38.8Overlapping lesion of heart, mediastinum and pleura
C39.0Upper respiratory tract, NOS
C39.8Overlapping lesion of respiratory system and intrathoracic organs
C39.9Ill-defined sites within respiratory system
C40.0Long bones of upper limb, scapula and associated joints
C40.1Short bones of upper limb and associated joints
C40.2Long bones of lower limb and associated joints
C40.3Short bones of lower limb and associated joints
C40.8Overlapping lesion of bones, joints and articular cartilage of limbs
C40.9Bone of limb, NOS
C41.0Bones of skull and face and associated joints
C41.1Mandible
C41.2Vertebral column
C41.3Rib, sternum, clavicle and associated joints
C41.4Pelvic bones, sacrum, coccyx and associated joints
C41.8Overlapping lesion of bones, joints and articular cartilage
C41.9Bone, NOS
C42.0Blood
C42.1Bone marrow
C42.2Spleen
C42.3Reticuloendothelial system, NOS
C42.4Hematopoietic system, NOS
C47.0Peripheral nerves and autonomic nervous system of head, face, and neck
C47.1Peripheral nerves and autonomic nervous system of upper limb and shoulder
C47.2Peripheral nerves and autonomic nervous system of lower limb and hip
C47.3Peripheral nerves and autonomic nervous system of thorax
C47.4Peripheral nerves and autonomic nervous system of abdomen
C47.5Peripheral nerves and autonomic nervous system of pelvis
C47.6Peripheral nerves and autonomic nervous system of trunk, unspecified
C47.8Overlapping lesion of peripheral nerves and autonomic nervous system
C47.9Autonomic nervous system, NOS
C48.0Retroperitoneum
C48.1Specified parts of peritoneum
C48.2Peritoneum, NOS
C48.8Overlapping lesion of retroperitoneum and peritoneum
C49.0Connective, subcutaneous and other soft tissues of head, face, and neck
C49.1Connective, subcutaneous and other soft tissues of upper limb and shoulder
C49.2Connective, subcutaneous and other soft tissues of lower limb and hip
C49.3Connective, subcutaneous and other soft tissues of thorax
C49.4Connective, subcutaneous and other soft tissues of abdomen
C49.5Connective, subcutaneous and other soft tissues of pelvis
C49.6Connective, subcutaneous and other soft tissues of trunk NOS
C49.8Overlapping lesion of connective, subcutaneous and other soft tissues
C49.9Connective, subcutaneous and other soft tissues, NOS
C50.0Nipple
C50.1Central portion of breast
C50.2Upper-inner quadrant of breast
C50.3Lower-inner quadrant of breast
C50.4Upper-outer quadrant of breast
C50.5Lower-outer quadrant of breast
C50.6Axillary tail of breast
C50.8Overlapping lesion of breast
C50.9Breast, NOS
C51.1Labium minus
C51.2Clitoris
C51.8Overlapping lesion of vulva
C51.9Vulva, NOS
C52.9Vagina, NOS
C53.0Endocervix
C53.1Exocervix
C53.8Overlapping lesion of cervix uteri
C53.9Cervix uteri
C54.0Isthmus uteri
C54.1Endometrium
C54.2Myometrium
C54.3Fundus uteri
C54.8Overlapping lesion of corpus uteri
C54.9Corpus uteri
C55.9Uterus, NOS
C56.9Ovary
C57.0Fallopian tube
C57.1Broad ligament
C57.2Round ligament
C57.3Parametrium
C57.4Uterine adnexa
C57.7Other specified parts of female genital organs
C57.8Overlapping lesion of female genital organs
C57.9Female genital tract, NOS
C58.9Placenta
C60.0Prepuce
C60.1Glans penis
C60.2Body of penis
C60.8Overlapping lesion of penis
C61.9Prostate gland
C62.0Undescended testis
C62.1Descended testis
C62.9Testis, NOS
C63.0Epididymis
C63.1Spermatic cord
C63.7Other specified parts of male genital organs
C63.8Overlapping lesion of male genital organs
C63.9Male genital organs, NOS
C64.9Kidney, NOS
C65.9Renal pelvis
C66.9Ureter
C67.0Trigone of bladder
C67.1Dome of bladder
C67.2Lateral wall of bladder
C67.3Anterior wall of bladder
C67.4Posterior wall of bladder
C67.5Bladder neck
C67.6Ureteric orifice
C67.7Urachus
C67.8Overlapping lesion of bladder
C67.9Bladder, NOS
C68.0Urethra
C68.1Paraurethral gland
C68.8Overlapping lesion of urinary organs
C68.9Urinary system, NOS
C69.1Cornea, NOS
C69.2Retina
C69.3Choroid
C69.4Ciliary body
C73.9Thyroid gland
C74.0Cortex of adrenal gland
C74.1Medulla of adrenal gland
C74.9Adrenal gland, NOS
C76.0Head, face or neck, NOS
C76.1Thorax, NOS
C76.2Abdomen, NOS
C76.3Pelvis, NOS
C76.4Upper limb, NOS
C76.5Lower limb, NOS
C76.7Other ill-defined sites
C76.8Overlapping lesion of ill-defined sites
C77.0Lymph nodes of head, face, and neck
C77.1Intrathoracic lymph nodes
C77.2Intra-abdominal lymph nodes
C77.3Lymph nodes of axilla or arm
C77.4Lymph nodes of inguinal region or leg
C77.5Pelvic lymph nodes
C77.8Lymph nodes of multiple regions
C77.9Lymph node, NOS
C80.9Unknown primary site

WHO Classification of Tumors

This list includes histology codes and preferred terms from the WHO Classification of Tumors and the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology (ICD-O). Most of the terms in this list represent malignant behavior. For cancer reporting purposes, behavior codes /3 (denoting malignant neoplasms), /2 (denoting in situ neoplasms), and in some cases /1 (denoting neoplasms with uncertain and unknown behavior) may be appended to the 4-digit histology codes to create a complete morphology code.

CodeDescription
9675Malignant lymphoma, mixed small and large cell, diffuse [obs]
9678Primary effusion lymphoma
9679Mediastinal (thymic) large B-cell lymphoma
9680Malignant lymphoma, large B-cell, diffuse, NOS
9684Malignant lymphoma, large B-cell, diffuse, immunoblastic, NOS
9688T-cell rich large B-cell lymphoma
9712Intravascular large B-cell lymphoma
9735Plasmablastic lymphoma
9737ALK-positive large B-cell lymphoma
9738Large B-cell lymphoma arising in human herpesvirus 8 (HHV8)-associated multicentric Castleman disease

International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization. International Classification of Diseases for Oncology. ICD-O-3-Online.http://codes.iarc.fr/home. Accessed August 16, 2017. Used with permission.

Introduction

All newly diagnosed patients with malignant lymphomas should have formal documentation of the anatomic disease extent before the initial therapeutic intervention; that is, clinical stage must be assigned and recorded. Although patients with recurrent disease generally do not have a new clinical stage assigned at the time of relapse, some prognostic models include stage at the time of second-line therapy, particularly in Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), with intent to proceed with high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell rescue.5-8 In all cases, recording of the anatomic disease extent at the time of relapse is recommended.

Lugano Classification Modification of the Ann Arbor Staging System

Anatomic staging of lymphomas traditionally has been based on the Ann Arbor classification system, which was originally developed more than 30 years ago for HL. It was based on the relatively predictable pattern of spread of HL and improved the ability to determine which patients might be suitable candidates for radiation therapy.2 It was updated as the “Cotswold system” to address some of the issues present in the original staging system and to accommodate newer diagnostic techniques, including computed tomography (CT) scan.1 It subsequently was applied to non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) as well, despite the fact that the pattern of spread is less predictable than that of HL. The Ann Arbor classification has been accepted as the best means of describing the anatomic disease extent and has been useful as a universal system for a variety of lymphomas; therefore, it was adopted by the AJCC and the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) as the official system for classifying the anatomic extent of disease in HL and NHL, with the exception of cutaneous lymphomas (e.g., mycosis fungoides), which are discussed later in this chapter. However, advances in diagnostics and therapy provided the impetus to review and modernize the evaluation and staging of lymphoma. Workshops were held at the 11th and 12th International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma to study areas in need of clarification or updating and then to review the proposed changes. The Lugano classification was published and forms the basis for revised recommendations regarding anatomic staging and evaluation of disease before and after therapy.4 This staging system is adopted by the AJCC.

For the purposes of coding and staging, lymph nodes, Waldeyer's ring, thymus, and spleen are considered nodal or lymphatic sites. Extranodal or extralymphatic sites include the adrenal glands, blood, bone, bone marrow, central nervous system (CNS; leptomeningeal and parenchymal brain disease), gastrointestinal (GI) tract, gonads, kidneys, liver, lungs, skin, ocular adnexae (conjunctiva, lacrimal glands, and orbital soft tissue), skin, uterus, and others. HL rarely presents in an extranodal site alone, but about 25% of NHLs are extranodal at presentation. The frequency of extranodal presentation varies dramatically among different lymphomas, however, with some (e.g., mycosis fungoides and mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue [MALT] lymphomas) being virtually always extranodal, except in advanced stages of the diseases, and some (e.g., follicular lymphoma) seldom being extranodal, except for bone marrow involvement.

The Lugano classification includes an E suffix for lymphomas with either localized extralymphatic presentation (Stage IE) or by contiguous spread from nodal disease (Stage IIE). For example, lymphoma presenting in the thyroid gland with cervical lymph node involvement should be staged as IIE. However, in a change from the Cotswold modification of the Ann Arbor staging system, E lesions do not apply to patients with Stage III nodal disease; any patient with nodal disease above and below the diaphragm with concurrent contiguous extralymphatic involvement is Stage IV (previously Stage IIIE). Frequently, extensive lymph node involvement is associated with extranodal extension of disease that also may directly invade other organs. Such extension should be described with the E suffix if the nodal disease is on one side of the diaphragm. For example, mediastinal lymph nodes with adjacent lung extension should be classified as Stage IIE disease. Other examples of Stage IIE diseases include extension into the anterior chest wall and into the pericardium from a large mediastinal mass (two areas of extralymphatic involvement) and no nodal involvement below the diaphragm; involvement of the iliac bone in the presence of adjacent iliac lymph node involvement and no nodal involvement above the diaphragm; involvement of a lumbar vertebral body in conjunction with para-aortic lymph node involvement and no nodal involvement above the diaphragm; and involvement of the pleura or chest wall as an extension from adjacent internal mammary nodes. A pleural or pericardial effusion with negative (or unknown) cytology is not an E lesion. Liver involvement is an exception; any liver involvement by contiguous or noncontiguous spread should be recorded as Stage IV.

The definition of disease bulk varies according to lymphoma histology. In HL, the extent of mediastinal disease is defined as the ratio between the maximum diameter of the mediastinal mass and maximal intrathoracic diameter based on CT imaging in the Lugano classification. In HL, bulk at other sites is defined as a mass >10 cm. A recent analysis has suggested that in early stage disease, masses > 7 cm (at any site) may dictate the inclusion of radiation to provide optimal outcomes.9 For NHL, the recommended definitions of bulk vary by lymphoma subtype. In follicular lymphoma, 6 cm has been suggested based on the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index, version 2 (FLIPI-2) and its validation.10,11 In DLBCL, cutoffs ranging from 5 to 10 cm have been used, although 10 cm is recommended.12

Lymph Node Regions

The staging classification for lymphoma uses the term lymph node region. The lymph node regions were defined at the Rye Symposium in 1965 and have been used in the Ann Arbor classification; this is unchanged in the Lugano classification (Figure 105.1). They are not based on any physiologic principles but rather have been agreed upon by convention. The currently accepted classification of core nodal regions is as follows:

In addition to these core regions, HL and NHLs may involve epitrochlear lymph nodes, popliteal lymph nodes, internal mammary lymph nodes (considered mediastinal by convention), occipital lymph nodes, submental lymph nodes, preauricular lymph nodes (all considered cervical, Figure 105.1), and many other small nodal areas. Clinical prognostic models may include specific definitions of nodal regions. For example, in follicular lymphoma, the FLIPI-2 uses a different definition of nodal regions (see prognostic factors for follicular lymphoma). This is also the case in determination of favorable versus unfavorable early-stage HL as proposed by the German Hodgkin Study Group (GHSG) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC; see prognostic factors for HL).

105.1 Lymph nodes above and below the diaphragm (Ann Arbor/Lugano classification).

A and B Classification (Symptoms)

For HL, each stage should be classified as either A or B according to the absence or presence of defined constitutional symptoms. The designation A or B is not included in the revised staging of NHL,4 although clinicians are encouraged to record the presence of these symptoms in the medical record. The symptoms are as follows:

  1. Fevers. Unexplained fever with temperature above 38°C
  2. Night sweats. Drenching sweats (e.g., those that require change of bedclothes)
  3. Weight loss. Unexplained weight loss of more than 10% of the usual body weight in the 6 months prior to diagnosis

Other symptoms, such as chills, pruritus, alcohol-induced pain, and fatigue, are not included in the A or B designation but are recorded in the medical record, as the reappearance of these symptoms may be a harbinger of recurrence.

Criteria for Organ Involvement

Lymph Node Involvement

Lymph node involvement is demonstrated by enlargement of a node detected clinically or by imaging when alternative pathology may reasonably be ruled out. Imaging criteria include demonstration of fludeoxyglucose (FDG) avidity on FDG positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) or unexplained node enlargement on CT. Suspicious nodes should always be biopsied if treatment decisions are based on their involvement, preferably with an excisional biopsy; fine-needle aspirations are strongly discouraged because of the potential for false negatives or misdiagnosis because of loss of lymph node architecture. Core needle biopsy may be able to provide adequate material for diagnosis, particularly of a secondary site.

Spleen Involvement

Spleen involvement is suggested by unequivocal palpable splenomegaly and demonstrated by radiologic confirmation (FDG-PET or CT). Positive findings on FDG-PET include diffuse uptake, a solitary mass, miliary lesions, or nodules and those on CT include enlargement of >13 cm in cranial-caudal dimension, a mass, or nodules that are neither cystic nor vascular.

Liver Involvement

Liver involvement is demonstrated on FDG-PET by diffuse uptake or mass lesions and on CT by nodules that are neither cystic nor vascular. Clinical enlargement alone, with or without abnormalities of liver function tests, is not adequate. Liver biopsy may be used to confirm the presence of liver involvement in a patient with abnormal liver function tests or when imaging assessment is equivocal, if treatment will be altered on the basis of those results.

Lung Involvement

Lung involvement is demonstrated by FDG-avid pulmonary nodules on FDG-PET and evidence of parenchymal involvement on CT in the absence of other likely causes, especially infection. Lung biopsy may be required to clarify equivocal cases.

Bone Involvement

Bone involvement is demonstrated in FDG-avid lymphoma by avid lesions on FDG-PET. It is quite common for FDG-PET to demonstrate more sites of bone involvement than CT imaging. A bone biopsy from an involved area of bone may be necessary for a precise diagnosis, if treatment decisions depend on the findings.

CNS Involvement

CNS involvement often is heralded by symptoms and is demonstrated by (a) a spinal intradural deposit or spinal cord or meningeal involvement, which may be diagnosed on the basis of the clinical history and findings supported by plain radiology, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) examination with flow cytometry, CT, and/or magnetic resonance (MR) imaging (spinal extradural deposits should be carefully assessed because they may be the result of soft tissue disease that represents extension from bone metastasis or disseminated disease) and (b) parenchymal brain disease demonstrated on CT and/or MR imaging, which may be confirmed by biopsy.

Bone Marrow Involvement

Bone marrow involvement is assessed by an aspiration and bone marrow biopsy. In HL, it is rare to have bone marrow involvement in the absence FDG-avid bone site. Therefore, if FDG-PET/CT is performed as part of the staging evaluation, routine bone marrow aspiration and biopsy is not required for staging of HL. In DLBCL, the presence of FDG-avid skeletal lesions precludes the need for a bone marrow aspiration and biopsy. However, the procedure generally should be done in the absence of FDG-avid bone disease because of the risk of identifying discordant bone marrow involvement by a small cell lymphoma. For the indolent B-cell lymphoma, bone marrow aspiration and biopsy remains the standard for evaluation; however, it may be deferred in patients who are candidates for initial observation. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) and/or flow cytometry may be useful adjuncts to histologic interpretation to determine whether a lymphocytic infiltrate is malignant.

Classification Rules

Clinical Classification

Clinical staging includes careful recording of medical history and physical examination; imaging of chest, abdomen, and pelvis; blood chemistry determination; complete blood count; erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR; in HL); and bone marrow biopsy (if indicated) (Table 105.1).

The basic staging investigation in HL and NHLs includes physical examination; complete blood count; lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) measurement; liver function tests; FDG-PET (for FDG-avid lymphomas); contrast-enhanced CT scan of the neck, chest, abdomen, and pelvis; and bone marrow aspiration and biopsy in selected cases. In the Lugano classification, both FDG-PET and diagnostic contrast-enhanced CT scanning are recommended. However, in clinical practice, FDG-PET (for FDG-avid lymphomas) may suffice for diagnosis and response evaluation; however, at the end of treatment, contrast-enhanced CT may be useful if imaging is planned during follow up. In patients presenting with extranodal lymphoma, imaging of the presenting area with either CT or MR is required to define local disease extent. In patients at high risk for occult CNS involvement (see Table 105.1), CSF cytology is performed, preferably with flow cytometry. Biopsies of any suspicious lesions also may be conducted as part of the initial clinical staging, especially if this would alter stage assignment. Bone marrow aspiration and biopsy is recommended in indolent lymphoma and aggressive NHL if there is no FDG-avid skeletal disease. It is not routinely necessary for staging of HL. Liver biopsy is not required as part of clinical staging, unless abnormal liver function occurs in the presence of otherwise limited-stage disease. Clinical staging is repeated at the end of therapy and forms the basis for defining response.

Additionally, baseline evaluation of HIV status should be done in all cases, as this may have an impact on treatment. Evaluation of hepatitis B serology is essential if anti-CD20 therapy is contemplated and is recommended in all cases because of the risk of reactivation of occult hepatitis B with chemotherapy alone. In patients receiving anti-CD20 therapy and for patients with small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL)/chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), baseline quantitative immunoglobulins are helpful to evaluate for the presence of hypogammaglobulinemia.

Pathological Classification

The use of the term pathological staging is reserved for patients who undergo staging laparotomy with an explicit intent to assess the presence of abdominal disease or to define histologic microscopic disease extent in the abdomen. As a result of improved diagnostic imaging, staging laparotomy and pathological staging generally are no longer performed.

105.1 Recommendations for the diagnostic evaluation of patients with lymphoma

  1. Mandatory procedures
    1. Biopsy (preferably excisional), with interpretation by a qualified pathologist. Diagnosis from a core biopsy should be based on multiple core biopsies. Appropriate IHC and ancillary studies should be performed to establish a diagnosis.13
    2. History, with special attention to the presence and duration of fever, night sweats, and unexplained loss of 10% or more of body weight in the previous 6 months (B symptoms should be recorded in the medical record; in HL, they are part of staging)
    3. Physical examination
    4. Laboratory evaluation
      1. Complete blood cell count and platelet count with differential and slide review
      2. ESR (HL patients)
      3. Comprehensive metabolic panel (electrolytes, blood urea nitrogen [BUN], creatinine, calcium, aspartate transaminase [AST; serum glutamic oxaloacetic transaminase (SGOT)], alanine transaminase [ALT; serum glutamic-pyruvic transaminase (SGPT)], bilirubin, total protein, albumin, alkaline phosphatase
      4. LDH, phosphorus, uric acid
      5. HIV testing
      6. Hepatitis B core antibody and hepatitis B surface antigen, especially in patients being considered for anti-CD20 therapy
    5. Radiographic examination
      1. CT of neck, chest, abdomen, and pelvis with intravenous (IV) contrast (if safe)
      2. Functional (metabolic) imaging with FDG-PET
    6. Bone marrow aspiration and biopsy in selected cases
  1. Examples of ancillary procedures
    1. Plain bone radiographs and/or MR imaging in patients with bone disease on functional imaging to evaluate for fracture
    2. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), colonoscopy, and/or GI series in patients with GI presentations
    3. MR imaging of the spine in patients with suspected leptomeningeal disease
    4. MR imaging of the brain in patients with cranial nerve palsy or suspicion of leptomeningeal or parenchymal brain disease
    5. CSF cytology with flow cytometry in patients with
      1. DLBCL
        1. CNS risk score*14 4-6
        2. CNS risk score 2-3 and double expressor (BCL2 and MYC by IHC)14
        3. HIV infection
        4. Testicular involvement15
        5. Breast involvement16
        6. Children
      2. Burkitt lymphoma

*CNS risk score: 1 point for each of the following risk factors: age >60 years; performance status (PS) 2; LDH greater than upper limit of normal; two or more extralymphatic sites; Stage III/IV; adrenal or renal involvement.

Registry Data Collection Variables
  1. Size of the largest mass in millimeters for all stages; essential for Stages I and II
  2. NCCN IPI points (0-8)
  3. IHC-determined COO

Prognostic Factors

Prognostic Factors Required for Stage Grouping

Stage is only one component in clinical prognostication. Clinical prognostic models have become the cornerstone for categorization of patients into various risk groups and in some cases, to guide therapy. However, the clinical prognostic models vary by lymphoma histology. In addition, important insights have been gained into the biology of the lymphoid neoplasms that also have had a profound impact on outcome and an emerging impact on therapy. These important factors for determination of clinical risk are discussed by disease entity.

The Lugano classification includes no prognostic variables required for determination of stage.

Additional Factors Recommended for Clinical Care

Several factors have emerged that have a reproducible impact on the outcome of patients with DLBCL.

International Prognostic Index (IPI) and Related Indices. The International Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Prognostic Factors Project used pretreatment prognostic factors in a sample of several thousand patients with aggressive lymphomas treated with doxorubicin-based combination chemotherapy to develop a predictive model of outcome for aggressive NHL.17 A multivariate analysis identified five pretreatment characteristics as independent, statistically significant prognostic factors: age in years (60 vs. >60); Stage I or II (localized) versus III or IV (advanced); number of extranodal sites of involvement (0-1 vs. >=2); patient's performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] 0 or 1 vs. >=2); and serum LDH level (normal vs. abnormal). With the use of these five pretreatment risk factors, patients could be assigned to one of the four risk groups on the basis of the number of presenting risk factors: low (0 or 1), low intermediate (2), high intermediate (3), and high (4 or 5). When patients were analyzed by risk factors, they were found to have very different outcomes with regard to complete response (CR), relapse-free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS). The outcomes indicated that the low-risk patients had an 87% CR rate and an OS rate of 73% at 5 years, in contrast to a 44% CR rate and 26% 5-year survival in patients in the high-risk group. A similar pattern of decreasing survival with several adverse factors was observed when only younger patients were considered (age-adjusted IPI), as well as when only limited stage (I-II) patients were considered (stage-modified IPI).

The IPI has remained reliable in the rituximab era; however, the delineation among risk groups is not as robust. This has led to suggestions to modify the grouping in the IPI. The revised IPI (R-IPI) restratified the same five clinical factors18 into three categories: good risk, zero factors; intermediate risk, one to two factors; and poor risk (three to five factors). This risk stratification performed better in patients treated in the rituximab era but has not been universally reproduced or adopted.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network IPI (NCCN-IPI)19 uses the same five clinical factors; however, the key difference is the recognition that age and LDH are continuous variables for which simple dichotomization is inappropriate. Age is divided into three groups: 41-60 years, 1 point; 61-75 years, 2 points, and >75 years, 3 points. LDH is divided into three groups: within normal limits, 0 points; greater than one to three times the upper limit of normal (ULN), 1 point; and greater than three times the ULN, 2 points. A point is given for any extralymphatic involvement of bone marrow, CNS, liver, lung, and/or GI tract. The NCCN-IPI has a total of 8 points, and the groups are stratified as follows: low risk, 0-1 points; low-intermediate risk, 2-3 points; intermediate-high risk, 4-5 points; and high risk, >=6 points. Compared with the IPI, the NCCN-IPI had better discrimination between the low- and high-risk groups with respect to 5-year OS: NCCN-IPI low 96% versus high 33%; IPI low 90% versus high 54%. This index has been validated independently, albeit with the suggestion that addition of albumin and β2-microglobulin may further improve prognostication.20

Cell of Origin (COO). The heterogeneity of DLBCL has been appreciated on morphologic grounds since the introduction of the REAL and subsequent World Health Organization (WHO) classifications.21,22 Gene expression profiling confirmed this heterogeneity and found that DLBCL, not otherwise specified, in large part could be divided into tumors derived from germinal center B cells (GC-DLBCL) or activated B cells (ABC-DLBCL).23 COO is a strong correlate of outcome in retrospective analyses in the rituximab era, with ABC-DLBCL having an inferior outcome compared with GC-DLBCL.24 Furthermore, several novel therapies, including ibrutinib and lenalidomide, have differential activity based on COO; both these agents are more active in ABC-DLBCL.

Distinction of DLBCL based on COO was incorporated into the 4th edition of the WHO classification, but its use in clinical practice was optional.13 In the upcoming revision, the recommendation is that COO be determined by the best available means. Although the Hans algorithm25 using IHC for CD10, BCL6, and MUM1/IRF4 has been the most commonly used method for determining COO, its limitations have been widely reported. The gold standard, gene expression profiling of tumor RNA on high-density gene arrays, was still a discovery tool unsuitable for clinical application. Recently, several assays were developed that use RNA extracted from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue and provide reproducible information about the COO that correlates with the gold standard and robustly predicts clinical outcome; however, these test have not yet been approved by the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA).26,27 As of this writing, IHC is still the most commonly available tool for determining COO, and this needs to be recorded by the registrar as reflected in the pathology report.

Double-hit and Double-expressor DLBCL. The double/triple-hit lymphomas (simultaneous translocation of BCL2 or BCL6 and MYC or translocation of BCL2/BCL6 and MYC) have been reported to have very poor outcomes. Biologically these tumors are GC-DLBCL but have outcomes inferior to those that do not have the dual translocations.4,28-32 It may be impractical to perform fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) on all cases of GC-DLBCL. IHC for MYC expression may serve as a screening tool to identify cases in which FISH should be performed. IHC for BCL2 or BCL6 is not useful in predicting translocations in these genes, however.

All cases of DLBCL should be evaluated by IHC for expression of BCL2 (>=70% of neoplastic cells is positive), BCL6 (>=50% is positive), and MYC (>=40% is positive) because patients with double expression (BCL2/MYC or BCL6/MYC) or triple expression (BCL2/BCL6/MYC) have an inferior outcome.33-36 Compared with patients with double or triple translocations, expression (without translocation) carries an intermediate prognosis. Unlike the double/triple-hit lymphomas, double expression is not restricted to GC-DLBCL, and double expression of BCL2 and MYC in the absence of translocation is more often seen in ABC-DLBCL.35

Special Clinical Considerations Affecting Therapy. Several relatively common clinical scenarios have an impact on therapeutic decisions, namely primary mediastinal large B cell lymphoma (PMBL); testicular lymphoma; and DLBCL associated with HIV. PMBL is a clinicopathologic diagnosis facilitated by communication of the clinical picture by the clinician to the pathologist. This diagnosis may have an impact on treatment choice. In the case of testicular lymphoma, there is a risk of disease in the contralateral testis, necessitating inclusion of scrotal radiation into the treatment plan. Furthermore, there is a risk of late parenchymal brain involvement, which may be affected by prophylactic CNS-directed therapy during initial treatment. Association of DLBCL with HIV infection also affects the choice of therapy and the decision to include antiviral therapy.

International Prognostic Index (IPI)/age-adjusted IPI (aaIPI)17

Definition: Five clinical factors predict outcome (0-1, low risk; 2, low-intermediate risk; 3, intermediate-high risk; 4-5, high risk): age (>60 years), PS (>=2), LDH (>ULN), extranodal sites (>=2), and CS (III/IV) are adverse. aaIPI does not include age; risk groups are 0-1, 2, 3, and 4 risk factors (RFs).

Clinical Significance: Robust predictor of outcome, even in the rituximab era.

AJCC Level of Evidence: II

Revised IPI (R-IPI)18

Definition: IPI risk factors (RFs) are grouped into three risk groups:good, 0 RF; intermediate, 1-2 RFs; poor, 3-5 RFs.

Clinical Significance: R-IPIhas better performance than IPI in rituximab era (although IPI continues to work).

AJCC Level of Evidence: III

NCCN-IPI19

Definition: IPI risk factors (RFs) restratified:age (41-60, 1 point; 61-75, 2 points; >75, 3 points); stage (III/IV, 1 point); PS (2-4, 1 point); extranodal sites (bone marrow, CNS, liver, lung, GI-yes, 1 point); LDH (>1-3 × ULN, 1 point; >3 × ULN, 2 points). Total 8 points: low risk, 0-1; low-intermediate risk, 2-3; intermediate-high risk, 4-5; high risk, >=6.

Clinical Significance: Better discrimination of low- and high-risk patients than IPI in rituximab era.

AJCC Level of Evidence: I

Stage-modified IPI37

Definition: Stage-modified IPI risk factors (RFs):age >60; LDH > ; PS (2-4); Stage II.Adverse risk: >=1 RF.

Clinical Significance: Stage-modified IPI discriminates RFs for patients with early-stage DLBCL (Stage I-II).

AJCC Level of Evidence: II

Cell of origin23-26 (COO)

Definition: Determine the COO of DLBCL by best available means* (minimally, IHC for CD10, BCL6, IRF4/MUM1) .

Clinical Significance: In retrospective studies, differential outcomes with standard therapy and targeted therapy (e.g., ibrutinib and lenalidomide).38-42

*Determination of COO is evolving. There are several emerging platforms that are superior to IHC, including the Lymph2CX (NanoString Technologies, Seattle, WA) 26 and Fluidigm (South San Francisco, CA) assays.27

AJCC Level of Evidence: II

Double-hit(MYC/BCL2 or MYC/BCL6)/triple-hit (MYC/BCL2/BCL6) lymphoma4,28-32

Definition: Restricted to GC-DLBCL phenotype: FISH for translocations of MYC with BCL2 and/or BCL6 translocation.

Clinical Significance: Double-/triple-hit lymphoma has a very poor outcome with conventional therapy.

AJCC Level of Evidence: I

Double-expressor (MYC/BCL2) lymphoma33-36

Definition: Concurrent expression of BCL2 and MYC by IHC.

Clinical Significance: Tumors expressing MYC and BCL2 have an inferior prognosis; identified additional tumors that are not double hit.

AJCC Level of Evidence: II

Numerous factors are being evaluated to help determine prognosis and guide therapy in DLBCL.

Tumor Somatic Mutations. One of the factors that might become important is determination of tumor-specific somatic mutations. Its value recently was demonstrated in elucidating our understanding of the response of ABC-DLBCL to ibrutinib.41 Activating mutation of CARD11, which is downstream of BTK, the target of ibrutinib, predicted lack of activity, whereas activating mutation of CD79b, upstream of BTK, was associated with enhanced activity of ibrutinib as a single agent. However, evaluation of somatic mutation cannot be recommended as a necessary component of care without additional data.

Tumor somatic mutations41

Definition: Identification of specific gene mutations by targeted sequencing.

Clinical Significance: Mutations in specific genes may provide basis for sensitivity or resistance to treatment: e.g., CARD11 mutation in ABC-DLBCL predicts resistance to ibrutinib.

AJCC Level of Evidence: III

Risk Assessment

Risk Assesment Models

Risk assessment models and prognostic tools play an important role in cancer medicine because they provide a mechanism to integrate disparate data elements into a process that leads to decreased prognostic heterogeneity. Such processes are useful for (1) identifying and characterizing important prognostic factors, (2) improving prognostic predictions for individual patients, and (3) designing, conducting, and analyzing clinical trials.43 The most common type of prognostic tool is a prognostic calculator that provides time-specific outcome (e.g., 5-year OS) probability predictions for individual patients based on their demographic, clinical, and tumor characteristics. The prognostic nomogram developed by Yang et al44 is an example of a risk calculator. Another type of prognostic tool is a prognostic classifier that places patients into ordered prognostic risk classes (either directly or based on cutoffs for individual probability estimates). The remaining tools referenced in this chapter (e.g., IPI, MIPI, FLIPI, and CLL-IPI) are prognostic classifiers. The AJCC Precision Medicine Core (PMC) developed and published criteria for critical evaluation of prognostic calculators,45 which are presented and discussed in Chapter 4. The prognostic nomogram developed by Yang et al44 meets all but one of the AJCC PMC criteria because it lacks discussion of how missing data were treated.

Stage Prognostic

Lugano Classification for Hodgkin and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma4
StageStage description
Limited stage
IInvolvement of a single lymphatic site (i.e., nodal region, Waldeyer's ring, thymus, or spleen)
IESingle extralymphatic site in the absence of nodal involvement (rare in HL)
IIInvolvement of two or more lymph node regions on the same side of the diaphragm
IIEContiguous extralymphatic extension from a nodal site with or without involvement of other lymph node regions on the same side of the diaphragm
II bulky*Stage II with disease bulk**
Advanced stage
IIIInvolvement of lymph node regions on both sides of the diaphragm; nodes above the diaphragm with spleen involvement
IV

Diffuse or disseminated involvement of one or more extralymphatic organs, with or without associated lymph node involvement

or noncontiguous extralymphatic organ involvement in conjunction with nodal Stage II disease

or any extralymphatic organ involvement in nodal Stage III disease

Stage IV includes any involvement of the CSF, bone marrow, liver, or multiple lung lesions (other than by direct extension in IIE disease).

*Stage II bulky may be considered either early- or advanced-stage disease based on lymphoma histology and prognostic factors (see discussion of HL prognostic factors).

**The definition of disease bulk varies according to the lymphoma histology. In the Lugano classification,4 bulk in HL is defined as a mass greater than one third of the thoracic diameter on CT of the chest or a mass greater than 10 cm. For NHL, the recommended definitions of bulk vary by lymphoma histology. In follicular lymphoma, 6 cm has been suggested based on the FLIPI-2 and its validation.10,11 In DLBCL, cutoffs ranging from 5 to 10 cm have been used, although 10 cm is recommended.12

HL uses an A or B designation with stage group. A/B is no longer used in NHL.

Bibliography

  1. Lister TA, Crowther D, Sutcliffe SB, et al. Report of a committee convened to discuss the evaluation and staging of patients with Hodgkin's disease: Cotswolds meeting. J Clin Oncol. 1989;7(11):1630-1636.
  2. Carbone PP, Kaplan HS, Musshoff K, Smithers DW, Tubiana M. Report of the Committee on Hodgkin's Disease Staging Classification. Cancer Res. 1971;31(11):1860-1861.
  3. Rosenberg SA. Validity of the Ann Arbor staging classification for the non-Hodgkin's lymphomas. Cancer Treat Rep. 1977;61(6):1023-1027.
  4. Cheson BD, Fisher RI, Barrington SF, et al. Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: the Lugano classification. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(27):3059-3068.
  5. Hamlin PA, Zelenetz AD, Kewalramani T, et al. Age-adjusted International Prognostic Index predicts autologous stem cell transplantation outcome for patients with relapsed or primary refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Blood. 2003;102(6):1989-1996.
  6. Moskowitz CH, Kewalramani T, Nimer SD, Gonzalez M, Zelenetz AD, Yahalom J. Effectiveness of high dose chemoradiotherapy and autologous stem cell transplantation for patients with biopsy-proven primary refractory Hodgkin's disease. British journal of haematology. 2004;124(5):645-652.
  7. Moskowitz CH, Matasar MJ, Zelenetz AD, et al. Normalization of pre-ASCT, FDG-PET imaging with second-line, non-cross-resistant, chemotherapy programs improves event-free survival in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood. 2012;119(7):1665-1670.
  8. Perales MA, Jenq R, Goldberg JD, et al. Second-line age-adjusted International Prognostic Index in patients with advanced non-Hodgkin lymphoma after T-cell depleted allogeneic hematopoietic SCT. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2010;45(9):1408-1416.
  9. Kumar A, Burger IA, Zhang Z, et al. Definition of bulky disease in early stage Hodgkin lymphoma in computed tomography era: prognostic significance of measurements in the coronal and transverse planes. Haematologica. 2016.
  10. Arcaini L, Rattotti S, Gotti M, Luminari S. Prognostic assessment in patients with indolent B-cell lymphomas. ScientificWorldJournal. 2012;2012:107892.
  11. Federico M, Bellei M, Marcheselli L, et al. Follicular lymphoma international prognostic index 2: a new prognostic index for follicular lymphoma developed by the international follicular lymphoma prognostic factor project. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(27):4555-4562.
  12. Pfreundschuh M, Ho AD, Cavallin-Stahl E, et al. Prognostic significance of maximum tumour (bulk) diameter in young patients with good-prognosis diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma treated with CHOP-like chemotherapy with or without rituximab: an exploratory analysis of the MabThera International Trial Group (MInT) study. The lancet oncology. 2008;9(5):435-444.
  13. Swerdlow SH, International Agency for Research on Cancer., World Health Organization. WHO classification of tumours of haematopoietic and lymphoid tissues. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2008.
  14. Savage KJ, Zeynalova S, Kansara RR, et al. Validation of a Prognostic Model to Assess the Risk of CNS Disease in Patients with Aggressive B-Cell Lymphoma. Blood. 2014;124(21):Abract 394.
  15. Vitolo U, Chiappella A, Ferreri AJ, et al. First-line treatment for primary testicular diffuse large B-cell lymphoma with rituximab-CHOP, CNS prophylaxis, and contralateral testis irradiation: final results of an international phase II trial. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(20):2766-2772.
  16. Hosein PJ, Maragulia JC, Salzberg MP, et al. A multicentre study of primary breast diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in the rituximab era. British journal of haematology. 2014;165(3):358-363.
  17. Shipp M, Harrington D, anderson J, et al. A predictive model for aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. New England Journal of Medicine. 1993;329(14):987-994.
  18. Sehn LH, Berry B, Chhanabhai M, et al. The revised International Prognostic Index (R-IPI) is a better predictor of outcome than the standard IPI for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with R-CHOP. Blood. 2007;109(5):1857-1861.
  19. Zhou Z, Sehn LH, Rademaker AW, et al. An enhanced International Prognostic Index (NCCN-IPI) for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated in the rituximab era. Blood. 2014;123(6):837-842.
  20. Melchardt T, Troppan K, Weiss L, et al. A modified scoring of the NCCN-IPI is more accurate in the elderly and is improved by albumin and beta2 -microglobulin. British journal of haematology. 2015;168(2):239-245.
  21. Harris NL, Jaffe ES, Stein H, et al. A revised European-American classification of lymphoid neoplasms: a proposal from the International Lymphoma Study Group. Blood. 1994;84(5):1361-1392.
  22. Jaffe ES, World Health Organization. Pathology and genetics of tumours of haematopoietic and lymphoid tissues. Lyon, Oxford: IARC Press; Oxford University Press (distributor); 2001.
  23. Alizadeh AA, Eisen MB, Davis RE, et al. Distinct types of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma identified by gene expression profiling. Nature. 2000;403(6769):503-511.
  24. Lenz G, Wright GW, Emre NC, et al. Molecular subtypes of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma arise by distinct genetic pathways. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105(36):13520-13525.
  25. Hans CP, Weisenburger DD, Greiner TC, et al. Confirmation of the molecular classification of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma by immunohistochemistry using a tissue microarray. Blood. 2004;103(1):275-282.
  26. Scott DW, Mottok A, Ennishi D, et al. Prognostic Significance of Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Cell of Origin Determined by Digital Gene Expression in Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-Embedded Tissue Biopsies. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(26):2848-2856.
  27. Xue X, Zeng N, Gao Z, Du MQ. Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: sub-classification by massive parallel quantitative RT-PCR. Lab Invest. 2015;95(1):113-120.
  28. Kanungo A, Medeiros LJ, Abruzzo LV, Lin P. Lymphoid neoplasms associated with concurrent t(14;18) and 8q24/c-MYC translocation generally have a poor prognosis. Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc. 2006;19(1):25-33.
  29. Kramer MH, Hermans J, Wijburg E, et al. Clinical relevance of BCL2, BCL6, and MYC rearrangements in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Blood. 1998;92(9):3152-3162.
  30. Le Gouill S, Talmant P, Touzeau C, et al. The clinical presentation and prognosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma with t(14;18) and 8q24/c-MYC rearrangement. Haematologica. 2007;92(10):1335-1342.
  31. Cheah CY, Oki Y, Westin JR, Turturro F. A clinician's guide to double hit lymphomas. British journal of haematology. 2015;168(6):784-795.
  32. Petrich AM, Gandhi M, Jovanovic B, et al. Impact of induction regimen and stem cell transplantation on outcomes in double-hit lymphoma: a multicenter retrospective analysis. Blood. 2014;124(15):2354-2361.
  33. Green TM, Young KH, Visco C, et al. Immunohistochemical double-hit score is a strong predictor of outcome in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(28):3460-3467.
  34. Horn H, Ziepert M, Becher C, et al. MYC status in concert with BCL2 and BCL6 expression predicts outcome in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Blood. 2013;121(12):2253-2263.
  35. Hu S, Xu-Monette ZY, Tzankov A, et al. MYC/BCL2 protein coexpression contributes to the inferior survival of activated B-cell subtype of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and demonstrates high-risk gene expression signatures: a report from The International DLBCL Rituximab-CHOP Consortium Program. Blood. 2013;121(20):4021-4031; quiz 4250.
  36. Johnson NA, Slack GW, Savage KJ, et al. Concurrent expression of MYC and BCL2 in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(28):3452-3459.
  37. Miller TP. The limits of limited stage lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(15):2982-2984.
  38. Hernandez-Ilizaliturri FJ, Deeb G, Zinzani PL, et al. Higher response to lenalidomide in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in nongerminal center B-cell-like than in germinal center B-cell-like phenotype. Cancer. 2011;117(22):5058-5066.
  39. Nowakowski GS, LaPlant B, Macon WR, et al. Lenalidomide combined with R-CHOP overcomes negative prognostic impact of non-germinal center B-cell phenotype in newly diagnosed diffuse large B-Cell lymphoma: a phase II study. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(3):251-257.
  40. Vitolo U, Chiappella A, Franceschetti S, et al. Lenalidomide plus R-CHOP21 in elderly patients with untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: results of the REAL07 open-label, multicentre, phase 2 trial. The lancet oncology. 2014;15(7):730-737.
  41. Wilson WH, Young RM, Schmitz R, et al. Targeting B cell receptor signaling with ibrutinib in diffuse large B cell lymphoma. Nature medicine. 2015;21(8):922-926.
  42. Younes A, Thieblemont C, Morschhauser F, et al. Combination of ibrutinib with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) for treatment-naive patients with CD20-positive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a non-randomised, phase 1b study. The lancet oncology. 2014;15(9):1019-1026.
  43. Halabi S, Owzar K. The importance of identifying and validating prognostic factors in oncology. Paper presented at: Seminars in oncology2010.
  44. Yang Y, Zhang YJ, Zhu Y, et al. Prognostic nomogram for overall survival in previously untreated patients with extranodal NK/T-cell lymphoma, nasal-type: a multicenter study. Leukemia. 2015;29(7):1571-1577.
  45. Kattan MW, Hess KR, Amin MB, et al. American Joint Committee on Cancer acceptance criteria for inclusion of risk models for individualized prognosis in the practice of precision medicine. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians. 2016.