Patient characteristics and treatment outcomes with Pola-R-CHP: A real-world study of patients with previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in the United States (US)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: The Phase III POLARIX study reported improved progression-free survival (PFS) of polatuzumab vedotin (Pola) in combination with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and prednisone (Pola-R-CHP) compared with rituximab in combination with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (R-CHOP) in patients with previously untreated, intermediate- or high-risk DLBCL (Tilly et al. NEJM 2022). Following regulatory approvals, Pola-R-CHP has become a new standard of care therapy for first-line (1L) DLBCL globally, including in the US. Real-world evidence on the use of Pola-R-CHP in the US has been limited and has primarily included patients treated at academic cancer centers only, demonstrating that Pola-R-CHP has a manageable safety profile and is effective (with robust response rates and high survival rates) in patients with previously untreated DLBCL (Iyengar et al. ASH 2024; Thiruvengadam et al. EHA 2025; Thiruvengadam et al. ICML 2025). This study aimed to describe patient characteristics, treatment patterns, effectiveness, and safety of Pola-R-CHP in patients with previously untreated DLBCL in the US, including representation of patients from community cancer centers. Methods: This study used the electronic health record (EHR)-derived, US nationwide, de-identified real-world Flatiron Health Research Database. Data were abstracted from structured (e.g. treatment administration) and unstructured (e.g. clinical notes, radiology/pathology reports) parts of the EHR. Patients diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, with ≥2 documented clinic visits and evidence of DLBCL within the EHR, and who had initiated 1L Pola-R-CHP between January 1, 2023 and April 30, 2025, were included. Efficacy was described using PFS, time to next treatment or death (TTNT-D), and overall survival (OS). Disease progression was assessed using the earliest evidence from radiography/pathology reports, physical exams, or other clinical evidence. Rates of pre-selected safety events documented in the EHR during 1L Pola-R-CHP treatment were described. Reasons for discontinuation of Pola were also abstracted from the EHR (available up to a cutoff date of February 28, 2025). Summary statistics and Kaplan-Meier estimates based on non-missing data were provided. Results: The study included 216 patients treated with 1L Pola-R-CHP. Median age was 70 years (range 21–85), 14% were aged ≥80 years, 42% were female, 83% were White, and 65% had an International Prognostic Index risk score of ≥2. Additionally, most patients (91%) had DLBCL not otherwise specified, 12% had DLBCL transformed from a prior indolent malignancy, 7% had double-hit lymphoma, and 30% had double-expressor lymphoma. The proportion of patients that had a cell of origin of germinal center B-cell (GCB) and non-GCB were similar (41% and 40%, respectively). Overall, 76% of patients received care from a community setting, 66% had commercial insurance, and 30% had a low socioeconomic status score (SES) of 1 or 2 (i.e. 30% of patients were in the lowest two SES quintiles). Median follow-up was 10 months. In terms of patient disposition, 81% of patients were in ongoing follow-up (with no documented second-line [2L] therapy), 12% had documented 2L therapy, and 7% had died with no documented 2L therapy. Median number of cycles for Pola-R-CHP was 6 (range 1–14); 63% had completed ≥6 cycles. Median PFS, TTNT-D, and OS were not reached. Event-free survival rates for PFS, TTNT-D, and OS were 92%, 87%, and 92% at 6 months, and 83%, 77%, and 87% at 12 months, respectively. Time-to-event estimates were consistent between the overall cohort, in patients with ≥6 months of follow-up (n=160), and in patients with ≥12 months of follow-up (n=111). Time-to-event estimates were also similar between subgroups of SES scores (1–2 vs 3–5) and cell of origin (GCB vs non-GCB). Among 139 patients with available data, 84% completed therapy and 7% discontinued Pola due to toxicity. Other reasons for discontinuation of Pola included progression, withdrawal by patient, and unrelated medical issues. Safety events after initiation of Pola-R-CHP included nausea/vomiting (39%), neutropenia (36%), diarrhea (35%), anemia (31%), and peripheral neuropathy (9%). Conclusions: This study adds to the evidence for the effectiveness of Pola-R-CHP as a standard of care therapy in clinical practice for patients with previously untreated DLBCL primarily originating from community cancer centers in the US.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».