Revising the Treatment Pathways in Lymphoma: New Standards of Care—How Do We Choose?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and follicular lymphoma are the most commonly encountered non-Hodgkin lymphomas in clinical practice. Both are biologically heterogeneous, with management strategies that are becoming increasingly complex. Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma typically exhibits aggressive behavior but can be cured in the majority of cases with immunochemotherapy. While R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) has been the standard of care for decades, the recent combination of polatuzumab-vedotin-R-CHP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone) has demonstrated improved progression-free survival for patients with intermediate- and intermediate-high-risk disease. Numerous novel therapies, including targeted agents and immunotherapy-based approaches, have recently been approved for relapsed/refractory disease and have led to improved outcomes. Follicular lymphoma is an indolent lymphoma that remains incurable with standard approaches. Overall survival in most patients is excellent, although a proportion of patients will have early relapsing disease and poorer outcomes. The availability of novel agents in the relapsed/refractory setting has shifted the treatment algorithm, which requires thoughtful consideration of sequencing. This article will review recent developments in the treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".