Prognostic Analysis of Patients with Primary Extranodal Lymphoma: A Retrospective Study

Figures & data

Table 1 The Distribution of Primary Sites and Survival Statistics of 220 PENL Cases

	Primary Site	Cases	Percentage (%)	3-Year OS (%)
Digestive system		77	35.00	86.70
	Stomach	52	23.64
	Small intestine	15	6.82
	Colon	10	4.55
Head and neck		56	25.45	76.00
Central nervous system		36	16.33	54.60
Skin		11	5.00	51.90
Genitourinary system		9	4.10	83.30
	Testis	6	2.73
	Others	3	1.36
Rare sites		31	14.10	78.70
	Thyroid	7	3.18
	Adrenal grand	6	2.73
	Others	18	8.18

Table 2 The Pathological Subtypes of PENL Patients

Cell of Origin	Subtypes	Cases	Percentage (%)
B-cell origin	Diffuse large B cell lymphoma	125	56.82
	Mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma	37	16.82
	Follicular lymphoma	3	1.36
	Mantle cell lymphoma	2	0.91
	Others	9	4.09
T-cell origin	NK/T cell lymphoma	27	12.27
	Others	17	7.73

Figure 1 The pathology of patients with PENL. (A) The pathology of DLBCL (primary site from central nervous system). (B) The pathology of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma (primary site from stomach) magnification ×200.

Table 3 The Risk Categories of PENL Patients According to IPI Score

Groups	IPI Score	Cases	Percentage (%)	3-Year OS (%)
Low-risk group	0–1	121	55.00	85.2
Medium-low-risk group	2	57	25.91	61.9
Medium-high-risk group	3	33	15.00	66.6
High risk group	4–5	9	4.09	45.7

Figure 2 The influences of ECOG scores, serum LDH levels, β₂-MG levels and pathological subtypes on OS and PFS of PENL patients. (A) The influences of ECOG scores on patients’ OS. (B) The influences of ECOG scores on patients’ PFS. (C) The influences of serum LDH levels on OS of patients. (D) The influences of serum LDH levels on PFS of patients. (E) The influences of serum β₂-MG levels on patients’ OS. (F) The influences of β₂-MG levels on patients’ PFS. (G) The influences of pathological subtypes on OS of patients. (H) The influences of pathological subtypes on PFS of patients.

Figure 3 Comparison of the influences of extranodal involvement degree and sex on both patients’ OS and PFS. (A) Comparison of the influences of extranodal involvement degree on patients’ OS. (B) Comparison of the influences of extranodal involvement degree on patients’ PFS. (C) Comparison of the influences of sex on patients’ OS. (D) Comparison of the influences of sex on patients’ PFS.

Figure 4 The influences of ESR on OS and PFS of PENL patients. (A) The influences of ESR on patients’ OS. (B) The influences of ESR on patients’ PFS.

Figure 5 Comparison of age and clinical staging on both patients’ OS and PFS. (A) Comparison of age on patients’ OS. (B) Comparison of age on patients’ PFS. (C) Comparison of clinical staging on patients’ OS. (D) Comparison of clinical staging on patients’ PFS.

Table 4 The Cox Regression Model Multivariate Prognostic Analysis of PENL Cases

Factors	OS (P value)	PFS (P value)
Serum LDH level	0.065	0.006
Serum β2-MG level	0.007	0.221
Performance status	0.020	0.003
The degree of extranodal involvement	0.085	0.228
Sex	0.162	0.387
Pathological subtype	0.001	0.001
ESR level	0.857	0.570