Table 1.
Comparison of different models and the HR of variables in the original IPI, KPI, PINK and NRI models.
| Model and definition (total point) | Variable | HRa | Point | Nomogram score [19] |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NRI | ||||
| Low risk (0) | Age (>60 years vs. ≤60 years) | 1.35 | 1 | 24 |
| Intermediate low risk (1) | Ann Arbor stage | |||
| Intermediate high risk (2) | II (II vs. I) | 1.86 | 1 | 48 |
| High risk (3)b | III–IV (III/IV vs. I) | 3.60 | 2 | 100 |
| Very high risk (≥4) | ECOG score (≥2 vs. 0–1) | 1.84 | 1 | 48 |
| Elevated LDH (yes vs. no) | 1.33 | 1 | 22 | |
| PTI (yes vs. no) | 1.78 | 1 | 45 | |
| IPI [16] | ||||
| Low (0–1) | Age (>60 years vs. ≤60 years) | 1.96 | 1 | |
| Intermediate low (2) | Ann Arbor stage (III/IV vs. I/II) | 1.47 | 1 | |
| Intermediate high (3) | ECOG score (≥2 vs. 0–1) | 1.80 | 1 | |
| High (≥4) | Elevated LDH (yes vs. no) | 1.85 | 1 | |
| Distant extranodal involvement (≥2 vs. 0–1) | 1.48 | 1 | ||
| KPI [18] | ||||
| Group 1 (0) | Ann Arbor stage (III/IV vs. I/II) | 2.37 | 1 | |
| Group 2 (1) | Elevated LDH (yes vs. no) | 2.28 | 1 | |
| Group 3 (2) | B symptoms (yes vs. no) | 2.20 | 1 | |
| Group 4 (≥3) | Regional lymph node (yes vs. no) | 1.55 | 1 | |
| PINK [15] | ||||
| Low risk (0) | Age (>60 years vs. ≤60 years) | 2.17 | 1 | |
| Intermediate risk (1) | Ann Arbor stage (III/IV vs. I/II) | 2.57 | 1 | |
| High risk (≥2) | Distant lymph node involvement (yes vs. no) | 1.73 | 1 | |
| Nonnasal disease (yes vs. no) | 1.94 | 1 | ||
HR hazard ratio, IPI International Prognostic Index, KPI Korean Prognostic Index, PINK prognostic index of natural killer lymphoma, NRI nomogram-revised risk index, ECOG Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, LDH lactate dehydrogenase, PTI primary tumor invasion.
aData derived from the original publication.
bHigh-risk group was defined as NRI ≥ 3 for early-stage patients.