ReviewCurrent oncology reports2018
Anti-CD20 Directed Therapy of B Cell Lymphomas: Are New Agents Really Better?
Review in Current oncology reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of new anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies versus rituximab for induction therapy of CD20Scientific reports · 2021Pooled it
- Subcutaneous ofatumumab for remission maintenance in pediatric idiopathic nephrotic syndrome: a case series.Clinical kidney journal · 2026Article
- Early Low-Dose Rituximab for Mild-to-Moderate Thyroid Eye Disease: A Preliminary Evaluation of Efficacy and Safety.International journal of endocrinology · 2026Article
- Article
- The Clinical Role of CXCR4-Targeted PET on Lymphoproliferative Disorders: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- New and Old Anti-CD20 Monoclonal Antibodies for Nephrotic Syndrome. Where We Are?Frontiers in immunology · 2022Review
- Cysteine Cathepsin Protease Inhibition: An update on its Diagnostic, Prognostic and Therapeutic Potential in Cancer.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewSince its initial approval in 1997, rituximab has revolutionized the treatment of CD20-positive lymphoproliferative disorders. Now, over two decades later, second-generation molecules are emerging that may have key biological advantages compared to rituximab, as well as biosimilars that may be more cost-effective. Clinicians, health policy makers, and payers will now need to critically appraise the available evidence for these competitors and decide which anti-CD20 to use. RECENT
findingsEvidence has emerged directly comparing rituximab IV to a subcutaneous preparation, and head-to-head comparisons of rituximab versus next-generation anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies have also been published. Trials comparing rituximab with newly developed biosimilars have also allowed for registration of these agents. In this review, we will present an overview of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody development, discuss the mechanistic and clinical evidence for rituximab, as well as the novel compounds, and provide commentary on the possible advantages and limitations of these agents.
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.