Subgroup analysis of elderly patients (pts) with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in the phase 3 POLARIX study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
7518 Background: In the Phase 3 POLARIX study (NCT03274492), polatuzumab vedotin with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (Pola-R-CHP) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (R-CHOP), with a similar safety profile in pts aged 18–80 years with previously untreated DLBCL (Tilly et al. 2022). Combination regimens may be associated with higher rates of toxicity in elderly pts. We report the efficacy and safety of Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP in pts aged ≥70 years enrolled in POLARIX. Methods: POLARIX methods were described by Tilly et al. (2022). Pts with previously untreated DLBCL were randomized 1:1 to receive 6 cycles of Pola-R-CHP or R-CHOP, plus 2 cycles of rituximab. This analysis focused on pts aged ≥70 years at enrollment. Results: Overall, 284 pts were analyzed for efficacy (Pola-R-CHP, n=141; R-CHOP, n=143) and 280 pts were analyzed for safety (Pola-R-CHP, n=137; R-CHOP, n=143). Median age was 74 years (range 70–80), and 69.7% had an International Prognostic Index score of 3–5. Most pts in either arm received all 6 doses of polatuzumab vedotin or vincristine (88.3% and 91.6% in the Pola-R-CHP and R-CHOP arms, respectively). At data cutoff (June 28, 2021; median follow-up: 24.2 months), the risk of progression, relapse or death was lower with Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP (hazard ratio [HR] 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41–0.99) (Table). Death by any cause occurred in 14.2% and 19.6% of pts treated with Pola-R-CHP and R-CHOP, respectively. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) results are presented in the Table. Safety profiles were generally comparable for Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP, including rates of Grade 3–5 adverse events (AEs), Grade 5 AEs, serious AEs, peripheral neuropathy (any grade), neutropenia (Grade 3–4), and infection (Grade 3–4) (Table). Conclusions: Pola-R-CHP and R-CHOP demonstrated similar safety profiles in pts aged ≥70 years with previously untreated DLBCL. The risk-benefit profile favored Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP. 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".