MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402827770 · doi:10.1038/s41375-024-02420-6

Pola-R-CHP or R-CHOEP for first-line therapy of younger patients with high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a retrospective comparison of two randomized phase 3 trials

2024· article· en· W4402827770 on OpenAlexaff
Georg Lenz, Hervé Tilly, Marita Ziepert, Bettina Altmann, Charles Herbaux, Fabian Frontzek, Maike Nickelsen, Calvin Lee, Jamie Hirata, Deniz Şahin, Saibah Chohan, Connie Lee Batlevi, Mark Yan, Franck Morschhauser, Norbert Schmitz

Bibliographic record

VenueLeukemia · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsRoche (Canada)
FundersGenentechSwedish Orphan BiovitrumF. Hoffmann-La RocheIncyteBeiGeneGilead SciencesMorphoSysCelgeneEli Lilly and CompanyAstraZenecaAgios PharmaceuticalsRocheAmgen
KeywordsLymphomaMedicineRetrospective cohort studyOncologyInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Study design, patient eligibility, randomization, endpoints, and statistical analyses of the two prospective, randomized phase 3 studies R-MegaCHOEP and POLARIX have been reported previously [ 7 , 12 ]. POLARIX was an international, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, whereas R-MegaCHOEP was an open label study performed in Germany. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria of both studies were published previously [ 7 , 12 ]. The current analysis compared outcomes of younger DLBCL patients (18–60 years) with age adjusted IPI (aaIPI) 2 or 3 treated with R-CHOEP on the R-MegaCHOEP study and patients treated with Pola-R-CHP on the POLARIX study. Protocol details are provided in Supplementary Data. The current analysis limited the comparison to PFS and OS as the definition of event-free survival is variable. While positron-emission tomography in combination with computed tomography (PET/CT) was used to determine the response at end of treatment for patients treated in the POLARIX study, the response of patients treated with R-MegaCHOEP was determined by CT scan only. The incidence of adverse events occurring in both studies were also compared. The study included 113 patients treated with Pola-R-CHP from the POLARIX study and 89 patients treated with R-CHOEP from the R-MegaCHOEP study. The majority of patients were male, with median ages of 52 and 51 for Pola-R-CHP and R-CHOEP groups, respectively. Major patient characteristics were similar across groups, including IPI factors and aaIPI (Table 1 ). MYC and BCL2 rearrangements were available for 79.6% and 84.1% of Pola-R-CHP patients, and 42.7% and 48.3% of R-CHOEP patients. Translocation percentages were 8.9% and 17.9% in Pola-R-CHP, and 7.9% and 20.9% in R-CHOEP. Data on cell of origin were available for 87 Pola-R-CHP and 39 R-CHOEP patients (Table 1 ). Median dose intensities of key drugs exceeded 98% in both groups (Supplementary Table 1 ). Radiotherapy was administered to 8 Pola-R-CHP and 21 R-CHOEP patients as part of the treatment protocol. Follow-up periods differed significantly, with a median of 28.1 months for Pola-R-CHP and 42.0 months for R-CHOEP. Two-year PFS was 74.8% for Pola-R-CHP and 72.4% for R-CHOEP, while OS was 88.3% for Pola-R-CHP and 81.7% for R-CHOEP (Fig. 1 ). Differences in efficacy were not significant. Separate evaluations for aaIPI 2 and 3 patients showed no significant differences in PFS and OS between the two treatments (Supplementary Figs. 1 , 2 ). Kaplan–Meier estimates of PFS ( A ) and OS ( B ). PFS at 2 years was 72.4% (95.0% CI 62.9%–81.8%) after R-CHOEP and 74.8% (95.0% CI 66.5%–83.0%) after Pola-R-CHP, respectively. The OS at 2 years was 81.7% (95.0% CI 73.6%–89.8%) after R-CHOEP and 88.3% (95.0% CI 82.3%–94.3%) after Pola-R-CHP. CI confidence interval, OS overall survival, PFS progression-free survival. PFS and OS were also analyzed for activated B-cell-like (ABC)- and germinal center B-cell (GCB)-subtypes of DLBCL. ABC-type patients treated with Pola-R-CHP showed higher 2-year PFS and OS rates compared with those treated with R-CHOEP (Supplementary Fig. 3 ). In GCB-type DLBCL, efficacy was similar between treatments. R-CHOEP was associated with higher rates of leukocytopenia, infections, anemia, thrombocytopenia, and severe neuropathy compared to Pola-R-CHP. Low-grade toxicities affecting quality of life were also more frequent with R-CHOEP (Supplementary Table 2 ). Mortality rates up to two years post-randomization were 13 for Pola-R-CHP and 16 for R-CHOEP. Disease progression or relapse was the main cause of death. Non-relapse mortality occurred in two Pola-R-CHP and three R-CHOEP patients. CNS relapses were noted in two Pola-R-CHP and three R-CHOEP patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.785

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLeukemiaSame topicLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207