Five-Year Analysis of the POLARIX Study: Prolonged Follow-up Confirms Positive Impact of Polatuzumab Vedotin Plus Rituximab, Cyclophosphamide, Doxorubicin, and Prednisone (Pola-R-CHP) on Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In thePOLARIX study (NCT03274492), Pola-R-CHP showed a significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit vs R-CHOP in patients (pts) with intermediate- or high-risk DLBCL at a median follow-up of 28 months (Tilly et al. NEJM 2022). Here, we report outcomes after 5 years of follow-up (cut-off, 5 July 2024). Methods: POLARIX methods were published in Tilly et al. NEJM 2022. Pts 18-80 years were randomized 1:1 to receive 6 cycles of Pola-R-CHP or R-CHOP, plus 2 cycles of rituximab. The primary endpoint was PFS. In this analysis, 1000 pts (expanded population) were evaluated; 879 pts (global ITT population) from the main study (enrolled Nov 2017-Jun 2019) and 121 pts from a Chinese extension cohort (enrolled Jul 2019-Dec 2020; Song et al. Blood 2023). Extended follow-up of efficacy and safety are described. A competing risk analysis assessed the risk of death from lymphoma vs other causes. Results: In the global ITT population, 879 (Pola-R-CHP, n=440; R-CHOP, n=439) and 873 pts (Pola-R-CHP, n=435; R-CHOP, n=438) were evaluable for efficacy and safety, respectively. In the expanded population, 1000 (Pola-R-CHP, n=500; R-CHOP, n=500) and 993 pts (Pola-R-CHP, n=495; R-CHOP, n=498) were evaluable for efficacy and safety, respectively. In the global ITT population (median follow-up 60.9 months), the 5-year PFS estimates were 64.2% (95% CI: 58.78-69.53) vs 59.1% (95% CI: 53.87-64.40) with Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP, showing a significant benefit (HR 0.78; 95% CI: 0.623-0.980). The 5-year OS estimates were 82.2% (95% CI: 78.53-85.82) vs 79.6% (95% CI: 75.70-83.47) with Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP, with an improved HR (0.87; 95% CI: 0.641-1.175) compared with the 2-year follow-up HR (0.94; 95% CI: 0.650-1.370). The 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) estimates were 71.3% (95% CI: 65.46-77.05) vs 65.5% (95% CI: 59.45-71.45) with Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP (HR 0.75; 95% CI: 0.570-0.992). In the expanded population (median follow-up 60.5 months), a similar significant 5-year PFS benefit was observed, with estimates of 63.1% (95% CI: 57.90-68.26) vs 59.1% (95% CI: 54.07-64.15) with Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP (HR 0.81; 95% CI: 0.652-0.996). The number of pts requiring subsequent systemic lymphoma therapy was 106 (21%) vs 145 (29%) with Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP. The 5-year OS estimates were 82.2% (95% CI: 78.78-85.68) vs 79.0% (95% CI: 75.24-82.70) with Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP, with no statistically significant difference (HR 0.84; 95% CI: 0.632-1.119). The 5-year DFS estimates were 69.4% (95% CI: 63.78-75.05) vs 65.1% (95% CI: 59.30-70.92) with Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP (HR 0.81; 95% CI: 0.625-1.042). Safety profiles were comparable with Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP across all safety-evaluable pts in the expanded population (n=993), including Grade 3-5 AE rates (62.6% vs 60.8%). Fewer secondary malignancies were observed with Pola-R-CHP (n=5) vs R-CHOP (n=12). No new safety signals were observed during long-term follow-up; similar rates of new serious AEs were reported with Pola-R-CHP and R-CHOP (1.8% and 2.2%, respectively). No new cases of peripheral neuropathy were reported. Serious infections occurred in 4 pts (0.8%) vs 1 (0.2%) pt with Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP. In the expanded population, fewer total deaths were observed in pts treated with Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP (90 vs 107). Lymphoma-related deaths occurred in 46 vs 62 pts with Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP (during the first 2 years, 32 vs 39 pts; beyond 2 years, 14 vs 23 pts for Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP). Similar numbers of deaths from infection (7 vs 11), cardiovascular disease (4 vs 5), and secondary malignancy (7 vs 5) were observed with Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP. In a competing risk analysis, with non-lymphoma-related deaths (including death due to study treatment) as competing events, the cumulative incidence of lymphoma-related death at 5 years was 9.1% vs 12.2% for Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP. Conclusions: Extended 5-year follow-up of POLARIX demonstrated sustained and significant PFS and DFS benefits for pts receiving Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP. OS was reassuring between pts with Pola-R-CHP and R-CHOP, with more deaths, including lymphoma-related deaths, observed with R-CHOP. With the observation that a higher proportion of pts receiving R-CHOP died beyond 2 years, prolonged follow-up will be of interest. Safety profiles remained similar between arms, and no new safety signals were identified. These outcomes confirm Pola-R-CHP as a standard of care for pts with previously untreated intermediate- or high-risk DLBCL.
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 | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".