Comparative effectiveness of salvage chemotherapy regimens and chimeric antigen T-cell receptor therapies in relapsed and refractory diffuse large B cell lymphoma: a network meta-analysis of clinical trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The optimal salvage chemotherapy regimen (SC) for relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) prior to autologous stem cell transplant remains unclear. Moreover, although chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapies were recently approved for primary refractory DLBCL, head-to-head comparisons are lacking. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL to July 2022, for randomized trials that enrolled adult patients with R/R DLBCL and performed network meta-analyses (NMA) to assess the efficacy of SC and CAR-T therapies. NMA of SC (6 trials, 7 regimens, n = 1831) indicated that rituximab with gemcitabine, dexamethasone, cisplatin (R-GDP) improved OS and PFS over compared regimens. NMA of 3 CAR-T trials (n = 865) indicated that both axi-cel and liso-cel improved PFS over stand-of-care, with no difference in OS. Our results indicate that R-GDP may be preferred for R/R DLBCL over other SC compared. Longer follow-up is required for ongoing comparative survival analysis as data from CAR-T trials matures.
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 | 0.021 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".