Real-world outcomes of frontline polatuzumab-rchp and impact of frailty in older adults with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Pola-RCHP is a new standard of care (SOC) in the frontline (1L) treatment of DLBCL. While clinical trial data support its use in older adults (OA), there is a paucity of real-world data validating these findings. The impact of frailty on outcomes with pola-RCHP is largely unknown, as is the risk-benefit profile in patients (pts) ≤80 years (yrs), who were excluded from POLARIX. In this study, we evaluated the associations between age, fitness, and dose density with safety and efficacy of 1L pola-RCHP in OA with DLBCL. Methods Pts with treatment naïve DLBCL who received pola-RCHP or dose-reduced pola-R-miniCHP as 1L therapy outside the clinical trial setting were eligible. This multicenter retrospective study included pts from 17 US centers. Baseline characteristics including markers of baseline fitness such as Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS), Cumulative Illness Rating Scale-Geriatric (CIRS-G) score, presence of geriatric syndrome (GS; defined as dementia, delirium, depression, osteoporosis, incontinence, falls, failure to thrive, or neglect/abuse), and impairments in activities of daily living (ADLs; defined as bathing, dressing, toileting, transferring, feeding, or continence) were collected. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in OA (age ≤70 yrs) with DLBCL. Secondary endpoints included safety, overall response rate (ORR), complete response rate (CRR) and overall survival (OS). Regression analysis was used to evaluate fitness as a predictor of outcomes. Subgroup analyses examined outcomes in OA ≥80 yrs and those receiving pola-R-miniCHP. Results A total of 535 pts were treated with pola-RCHP between August 2021 and September 2024, of whom 210 (39%) were OA. Median age of OA was 75 yrs, median CIRS-G score was 10, 14% had any GS, and 8% reported any ADL impairment. OA tended to have worse ECOG PS (≥2; 23%, p=0.009) and IPI score (3-5; 77%, p<0.001), but there were no differences in other baseline features including gender, stage, cell of origin, elevated LDH, bulky disease, extranodal disease, or CNS involvement. OA received pola-R-miniCHP more frequently (18% vs 1.5%, p<0.0001) and had similar rates of treatment completion (85%, p=0.2) as pts <70 yrs. Median follow up was 11.3 months. ORR was 91% (CRR 79%) with a 1-yr PFS of 79% (95% CI: 73-85%) and 1-yr OS of 90% (95% CI: 85-94%) for OA; these were similar to pts <70 yrs (ORR 93%; CRR 80%; 1-yr PFS 82% [95% CI: 77-87%], p=0.18; 1-yr OS 91% [95% CI: 88-95%], p=0.53]. OA had higher rates of cardiomyopathy (6.2% vs. 1.5%, p=0.004), grade 3+ (G3+) neutropenia (38% vs. 27%, p=0.013), G3+ thrombocytopenia (22% vs. 11%, p<0.001) and hospitalization (38% vs 26%, p=0.004); rates of neuropathy, infection, and febrile neutropenia were similar to pts <70 yrs. Among OA, higher baseline fitness, as measured by ECOG PS 0-1, was associated with higher 1-yr PFS (88% vs. 63%, p<0.0001) and 1-yr OS (96% vs. 74%, p<0.0001) and a lower rate of hospitalization (30% vs. 65%, p<0.001). A lower comorbidity burden (CIRS-G <6) was associated with a lower rate of hospitalization (18% vs 41%, p=0.041), but did not impact PFS or OS. Impairments in ADLs were also associated with lower OS (78% vs 91%, p=0.03). OA receiving pola-R-miniCHP (n=38) were older (79 yrs vs. 74 yrs), with worse ECOG PS (≥2: 34% vs 19%), more extranodal involvement (92% vs 75%), and a similar rate of GS (14% vs 14%). The rate of hospitalization was higher (45% vs. 36%, p<0.05) but ORR (84% vs. 93%), CRR (79% vs. 79%), 1-yr PFS (85% vs. 78%), and 1-yr OS (87% vs. 90%) were similar. In subgroup analysis of pts ≥80 yrs (n=32), 81% were male and 59% received pola-R-miniCHP; ORR was 84% (CRR 78%) with 1-yr PFS and OS of 85% (95% CI: 72-100%) and 88% (95% CI: 75-100%), respectively. Pts ≥80 yrs had a higher rate of any grade neuropathy (23%, p=0.03) but similar rates of treatment completion, cardiomyopathy, G3+ neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, G3+ thrombocytopenia, and hospitalization relative to pts 70-80yrs. Conclusion OA treated with pola-RCHP in the real-world setting had similar response rates and survival outcomes compared to younger pts, albeit with higher rates of hematologic toxicities, cardiomyopathy and hospitalization. Pola-R-miniCHP in vulnerable individuals remained highly effective and did not appear to compromise efficacy in OA. Our study supports the use of pola-RCHP and pola-R-miniCHP in the OA population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".