Figure 2
Figure 2. OS of patients with AITL. OS according to IPI (A) and PIT (B) are shown. Both IPI and PIT could stratify the prognosis of AITL. IPI categorized patients as follows: L (n = 18), LI (n = 42), HI (n = 74), and H (n = 64). L, low risk; LI, low-intermediate risk; HI, high-intermediate risk; H, high risk. PIT categorized as follows: group 1 (n = 8), group 2 (n = 42), group 3 (n = 80), and group 4 (n = 71).

OS of patients with AITL. OS according to IPI (A) and PIT (B) are shown. Both IPI and PIT could stratify the prognosis of AITL. IPI categorized patients as follows: L (n = 18), LI (n = 42), HI (n = 74), and H (n = 64). L, low risk; LI, low-intermediate risk; HI, high-intermediate risk; H, high risk. PIT categorized as follows: group 1 (n = 8), group 2 (n = 42), group 3 (n = 80), and group 4 (n = 71).

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal