Subgroup analysis of older patients ≥60 years with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in the phase 3 POLARIX study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: In the phase 3 POLARIX study, Pola-R-CHP (polatuzumab vedotin plus rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone) improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) in patients with previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). This post hoc subgroup analysis of POLARIX evaluated the efficacy and safety of Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP in older patients aged ≥60, ≥65, ≥70, and ≥75 years. As of 15 June 2022 (median follow-up, 40 months), 629 patients aged ≥60 years were included (Pola-R-CHP, n = 311; R-CHOP, n = 318). Clinically meaningful improvements in PFS with Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP were observed across all age groups, particularly in patients aged ≥70 years whereby the risk of disease progression, relapse, or death was reduced by 37% (unstratified hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.96). In patients aged ≥60 years, overall survival was similar with Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP (unstratified HR, 0. 99; 95% CI, 0.67-1.47). Safety profiles were similar for Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP among patients aged ≥60 years, including rates of grade 3 to 4 adverse events (AEs; 62.7% vs 61.5%), grade 3 to 5 infections (15.0% vs 12.9%), and grade 5 AEs (3.6% vs 3.2%); no novel toxicities were reported. Incidence of grade 3 to 4 febrile neutropenia was higher with Pola-R-CHP than R-CHOP (16.3% vs 7.6%), highlighting the importance of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis in older patients receiving Pola-R-CHP. The benefit-risk profile favored Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP in older patients with previously untreated DLBCL. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT03274492.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".