Polatuzumab Vedotin in Relapsed or Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE Patients with transplantation-ineligible relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) fare poorly, with limited treatment options. The antibody-drug conjugate polatuzumab vedotin targets CD79b, a B-cell receptor component. METHODS Safety and efficacy of polatuzumab vedotin with bendamustine and obinutuzumab (pola-BG) was evaluated in a single-arm cohort. Polatuzumab vedotin combined with bendamustine and rituximab (pola-BR) was compared with bendamustine and rituximab (BR) in a randomly assigned cohort of patients with transplantation-ineligible R/R DLBCL (primary end point: independent review committee [IRC] assessed complete response [CR] rate at the end of treatment). Duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression methods. RESULTS Pola-BG and pola-BR had a tolerable safety profile. The phase Ib/II pola-BG cohort (n = 27) had a CR rate of 29.6% and a median OS of 10.8 months (median follow-up, 27.0 months). In the randomly assigned cohort (n = 80; 40 per arm), pola-BR patients had a significantly higher IRC-assessed CR rate (40.0% v 17.5%; P = .026) and longer IRC-assessed PFS (median, 9.5 v 3.7 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.36, 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.63; P < .001) and OS (median, 12.4 v 4.7 months; HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.75; P = .002; median follow-up, 22.3 months). Pola-BR patients had higher rates of grade 3-4 neutropenia (46.2% v 33.3%), anemia (28.2% v 17.9%), and thrombocytopenia (41% v 23.1%), but similar grade 3-4 infections (23.1% v 20.5%), versus the BR group. Peripheral neuropathy associated with polatuzumab vedotin (43.6% of patients) was grade 1-2 and resolved in most patients. CONCLUSION Polatuzumab vedotin combined with BR resulted in a significantly higher CR rate and reduced the risk of death by 58% compared with BR in patients with transplantation-ineligible R/R DLBCL.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".