MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417013127 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-6265

Patient characteristics and treatment outcomes with Pola-R-CHP: A real-world study of patients with previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in the United States (US)

2025· article· en· W4417013127 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick M. Reagan, Natasha Shamas, Anthony Masaquel, Farah Hossain, Adriano Sa, Sai Li, Yong Mun, Lara Chayab, Laura Perez, Carolina Reyes, Ashwini Shewade, Daniel J. Landsburg

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsRoche (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrednisoneRituximabVincristineLymphomaCancerClinical trialDiseaseDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaBendamustine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: The Phase III POLARIX study reported improved progression-free survival (PFS) of polatuzumab vedotin (Pola) in combination with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and prednisone (Pola-R-CHP) compared with rituximab in combination with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (R-CHOP) in patients with previously untreated, intermediate- or high-risk DLBCL (Tilly et al. NEJM 2022). Following regulatory approvals, Pola-R-CHP has become a new standard of care therapy for first-line (1L) DLBCL globally, including in the US. Real-world evidence on the use of Pola-R-CHP in the US has been limited and has primarily included patients treated at academic cancer centers only, demonstrating that Pola-R-CHP has a manageable safety profile and is effective (with robust response rates and high survival rates) in patients with previously untreated DLBCL (Iyengar et al. ASH 2024; Thiruvengadam et al. EHA 2025; Thiruvengadam et al. ICML 2025). This study aimed to describe patient characteristics, treatment patterns, effectiveness, and safety of Pola-R-CHP in patients with previously untreated DLBCL in the US, including representation of patients from community cancer centers. Methods: This study used the electronic health record (EHR)-derived, US nationwide, de-identified real-world Flatiron Health Research Database. Data were abstracted from structured (e.g. treatment administration) and unstructured (e.g. clinical notes, radiology/pathology reports) parts of the EHR. Patients diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, with ≥2 documented clinic visits and evidence of DLBCL within the EHR, and who had initiated 1L Pola-R-CHP between January 1, 2023 and April 30, 2025, were included. Efficacy was described using PFS, time to next treatment or death (TTNT-D), and overall survival (OS). Disease progression was assessed using the earliest evidence from radiography/pathology reports, physical exams, or other clinical evidence. Rates of pre-selected safety events documented in the EHR during 1L Pola-R-CHP treatment were described. Reasons for discontinuation of Pola were also abstracted from the EHR (available up to a cutoff date of February 28, 2025). Summary statistics and Kaplan-Meier estimates based on non-missing data were provided. Results: The study included 216 patients treated with 1L Pola-R-CHP. Median age was 70 years (range 21–85), 14% were aged ≥80 years, 42% were female, 83% were White, and 65% had an International Prognostic Index risk score of ≥2. Additionally, most patients (91%) had DLBCL not otherwise specified, 12% had DLBCL transformed from a prior indolent malignancy, 7% had double-hit lymphoma, and 30% had double-expressor lymphoma. The proportion of patients that had a cell of origin of germinal center B-cell (GCB) and non-GCB were similar (41% and 40%, respectively). Overall, 76% of patients received care from a community setting, 66% had commercial insurance, and 30% had a low socioeconomic status score (SES) of 1 or 2 (i.e. 30% of patients were in the lowest two SES quintiles). Median follow-up was 10 months. In terms of patient disposition, 81% of patients were in ongoing follow-up (with no documented second-line [2L] therapy), 12% had documented 2L therapy, and 7% had died with no documented 2L therapy. Median number of cycles for Pola-R-CHP was 6 (range 1–14); 63% had completed ≥6 cycles. Median PFS, TTNT-D, and OS were not reached. Event-free survival rates for PFS, TTNT-D, and OS were 92%, 87%, and 92% at 6 months, and 83%, 77%, and 87% at 12 months, respectively. Time-to-event estimates were consistent between the overall cohort, in patients with ≥6 months of follow-up (n=160), and in patients with ≥12 months of follow-up (n=111). Time-to-event estimates were also similar between subgroups of SES scores (1–2 vs 3–5) and cell of origin (GCB vs non-GCB). Among 139 patients with available data, 84% completed therapy and 7% discontinued Pola due to toxicity. Other reasons for discontinuation of Pola included progression, withdrawal by patient, and unrelated medical issues. Safety events after initiation of Pola-R-CHP included nausea/vomiting (39%), neutropenia (36%), diarrhea (35%), anemia (31%), and peripheral neuropathy (9%). Conclusions: This study adds to the evidence for the effectiveness of Pola-R-CHP as a standard of care therapy in clinical practice for patients with previously untreated DLBCL primarily originating from community cancer centers in the US.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→