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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".