Five-Year Outcomes of the POLARIX Study Comparing Pola-R-CHP and R-CHOP in Patients With Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the POLARIX study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03274492), polatuzumab vedotin plus rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone (Pola-R-CHP) showed a significant progression-free survival (PFS) benefit versus rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) in patients with previously untreated intermediate- or high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL; median follow-up: 28 months). In this 5-year update, sustained PFS benefits favoring Pola-R-CHP were observed. In the global intention-to-treat population (N = 879; median follow-up: 64.1 months), Pola-R-CHP demonstrated a significant PFS benefit over R-CHOP (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77 [95% CI, 0.62 to 0.97]), with 5-year PFS rates of 64.9% (95% CI, 59.8 to 70.0) and 59.1% (95% CI, 53.9 to 64.3), respectively. Although not statistically significant, overall survival analysis showed a HR of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.63 to 1.15) at the 5-year data cut compared with 0.94 (95% CI, 0.67 to 1.33) at the 2-year data cut. In the expanded population, 46 and 62 patients had lymphoma-related deaths in the Pola-R-CHP and R-CHOP arms, respectively. Exploratory analyses showed favorable 5-year survival rates with Pola-R-CHP in high-risk subgroups, including activated B-cell DLBCL and International Prognostic Index score 3-5. Long-term tolerability was similar between treatment arms. Findings confirm Pola-R-CHP represents a standard of care for frontline treatment of 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".