Analysis of peripheral neuropathy (PN) using clinician- and patient-reported outcomes (ClinRO and PRO) in the POLARIX study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
7561 Background: PN is an identified risk of anti-microtubule agents, including polatuzumab vedotin and vincristine. POLARIX (NCT03274492), a Phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study comparing Pola-R-CHP with R-CHOP, demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS) with Pola-R-CHP (Tilly et al. NEJM 2022). Here, we evaluate the impact of Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP on PN using ClinRO and PRO data. Methods: Patients with previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) received Pola-R-CHP or R-CHOP. ClinRO data were based on PN grading according to the NCI CTCAE v4.0. PRO data were generated from assessment of patient-reported PN symptoms at baseline and Day 1 of each cycle using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynecologic Oncology Group – Neurotoxicity (FACT-GOG/NTX) subscale, ranging from 0–44, with higher scores representing lower levels of PN (minimal clinically important difference: 1.38–3.68 [Cheng et al. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2020]). Results: At baseline, ClinRO and PRO symptom scores showed low PN burden (Table). Overall incidence of PN was comparable between treatment arms (Pola-R-CHP: 52.9%; R-CHOP: 53.9%); most events were grade 1, and incidence of grade 2 (Pola-R-CHP: 12.2%; R-CHOP: 15.5%) and grade 3 (Pola-R-CHP: 1.6%; R-CHOP: 1.1%) events were comparable between treatment arms. FACT-GOG/NTX survey completion was high in both arms (96% at baseline; >80% at other timepoints). When evaluated by cycle, ClinRO and PRO demonstrated that more patients experienced earlier onset PN with R-CHOP than with Pola-R-CHP (Table), with ̃10% more R-CHOP- than Pola-R-CHP-treated patients having clinician-reported PN in Cycle (C) 2–5, and a ̃+1-point difference (i.e. fewer symptoms) in PRO symptom scores in C3–6 with Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP; by C8+, and during follow up, rates and symptoms of PN were similar. PN symptoms resulted in fewer dose reductions (3.9% vs 8.2%) and drug discontinuations (0.7% vs 2.1%) with Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP. Duration of PN was similar for both treatments. Conclusions: In the POLARIX study, Pola-R-CHP did not result in different rates or severity of PN vs R-CHOP. According to ClinRO and PRO data, PN occurred later following initial exposure to Pola-R-CHP than to R-CHOP, and there were fewer dose modifications with Pola-R-CHP than with R-CHOP. Overall, the risk of PN was manageable. Clinical trial information: NCT03274492. [Table: see text]
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 | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".