Trial reportAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2018
Clinical Response to CHOP vs. R-CHOP in Adult Patients with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphomas
Trial report in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Primary pulmonary diffuse large B cell lymphoma presenting with features of organizing pneumonia: a case report.Journal of medical case reports · 2025Article
- Gastric mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma with central nervous system involvement: a case report and 8-year follow-up.Translational cancer research · 2021Article
- Clinical and Molecular Properties of Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Related Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to address the question of “superiority of R-CHOP versus CHOP”, with addition of Rituximab to CHOP, regarding survival of patients suffering from DLBCL. Patients and methods: A cohort retrospective design was used to conduct this study in a tertiary care hospital. A total of 100 patients (50 in each group) were randomly selected. The primary and secondary end points were EFS, OS, PFS and DFS. Kaplan Meier survival curve analysis (log rank, Breslow and Tarone ware tests) was employed to compare probability of survival for the two groups (CHOP/ R-CHOP). Results: The mean primary and secondary clinical indicators were estimated for each group (EFS, 1.7; 3.09 with a p value P=0.02), (OS, 0.60; 0.43 with a p value P=0.40), (PFS, 1.73; 3.57 with a p value P=0.002), (DFS, 0.02; 0.48 with a p value of P=0.00). Conclusion:The results for differences in clinical response were statistically significant in favor of the R-CHOP group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.