ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2018
Retrospective analysis of first-line treatment for follicular lymphoma based on outcomes and medical economics.
Article in International journal of clinical oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFollicular lymphoma (FL) is the most common type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), with indolent progression. Several treatment options are selected, based not only on disease status, quality of life (QOL), and age of patient, but also on recent increasing medical costs. We retrospectively analysed the first-line treatment of FL with regard to treatment outcomes and medical economics, and discuss the appropriate strategies for FL.
methodsData on a total of 69 newly-diagnosed patients with FL was retrospectively collected from 2001 to 2015.
resultsThe median age of the patients was 60 years and the median follow-up was 58 months. A total of 25 cases with FL were treated with R monotherapy, and 28 cases were treated with R-CHOP as first-line treatment. The factors affecting the decision of physicians to use R or R-CHOP treatment were serum level of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and disease stage. The first-line treatment-associated survival did not show any statistical differences between R and R-CHOP. The average hospitalization and average of all medical costs during the first-line treatment were 4.1 days (R) versus 55.7 days (R-CHOP), and JPY 1,707,693 (USD 15,324) (R) versus JPY 2,136,117 (USD 19,170) (R-CHOP), respectively.
conclusionR monotherapy for patients whose diseases show low tumor burden and who are not candidates for local treatment has benefits as a first-line treatment compared to R-CHOP, based on the patients' QOL and medical economics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29063983What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.