Table 2.

Clinical and laboratory variables included in each model.

Models with four risk groups	Age (years)	ECOG PS	Stage	EN sites	LDH	Hgb, g/L	ALC, 109/L	PLT, 109/L	Albumin, g/L
IPI [3]	≤60 vs. >60	≤1 vs. >1	I/II vs. III/IV	≤1 vs. >1	≤ULN vs. >ULN
aaIPI [3]			I/II vs. III/IV	≤1 vs. >1	≤ULN vs. >ULN
NCCN-IPI [8]	≤40 vs. 41–60 vs. 61–75 vs. >75	≤1 vs. >1	I/II vs. III/IV	0 vs. ≥1a	≤ULN vs. 1–3xULN vs. >3xULN
DLBCL-PI [12]	≤70 vs. >70	≤1 vs. >1	I/II vs. III/IV		≤ULN vs. >ULN				≤40 vs. >40
aaDLBCL-PI [12]		≤1 vs. >1		≤1 vs. >1	≤ULN vs. >ULN				≤40 vs. >40
Modified NCCN-IPI [30]	≤40 vs. 41–60 vs. 61–75 vs. >75	≤1 vs. >1	I/II vs. III/IV	0 vs. ≥1a	≤ULN vs. 1-3xULN vs. >3xULN				<35 vs. ≥35
KPI [31]		≤1 vs. >1		0 vs. ≥1a	≤ULN vs. 1-3xULN vs. >3xULN				<35 vs. ≥35
Modified 3-Factor Model [29]		≤1 vs. >1	I/II vs. III/IV				<1 vs. ≥1
Models with three risk groups
R-IPI [7]	≤60 vs. >60	≤1 vs. >1	I/II vs. III/IV	≤1 vs. >1	≤ULN vs. >ULN
Matsumoto Model [33]			<III vs. ≥III			<Gr 2 vs. ≥Gr 2b
ALC/R-IPI [28]	≤60 vs. >60	≤1 vs. >1	I/II vs. III/IV	≤1 vs. >1	≤ULN vs. >ULN		<0.84 vs. ≥0.84
PA Score [32]								<100 vs. ≥100	<35 vs. ≥35
HP Index [34]						<120 vs. ≥120		<135 vs. ≥135

aaDLBCL-PI age-adjusted DLBCL-PI, aaIPI age-adjusted IPI, ALC absolute lymphocyte count, DLBCL diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, DLBCL-PI DLBCL Prognostic Index, ECOG PS Eastern Oncology Cooperative Group performance status, EN Extranodal, Hgb hemoglobin, HP hemoglobin-platelet, IPI International Prognostic Index, KPI Kyoto Prognostic Index, LDH lactate dehydrogenase, NCCN-IPI National Comprehensive Cancer Network-IPI, No number, PA platelet-albumin, PLT platelets, R-IPI Revised International Prognostic Index, ULN upper limit of normal.

^aLook into original publications for calculation of the high-risk localizations.

^bAnemia grade 2: Hemoglobin <10–8.0 g/dL (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events—CTCAE).