ReviewCancer medicine2022
The outcome of watchful waiting in patients with previously treated follicular lymphoma.
Review in Cancer medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Phase 3 SELENE study: ibrutinib plus BR/R-CHOP in previously treated patients with follicular or marginal zone lymphoma.Blood advances · 2023Trial
- Newly diagnosed and relapsed follicular lymphoma: EHA Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up.HemaSphere · 2026Article
- Canadian Hematology Consensus Group Recommendations for the Management of Relapsed and/or Refractory Follicular Lymphoma.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Review
- Review of the Management of Relapsed/Refractory Follicular Lymphoma: An Italian Perspective.Hematological oncology · 2025Review
- Follicular lymphoma: contemporary clinical management with a focus on recent therapeutic advances.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2025Review
- Current treatment approach and future perspectives in B cell lymphoma.International journal of hematology · 2025Review
- Personalised therapy in follicular lymphoma - is the dial turning?Hematological oncology · 2024Review
- [Chinese expert consensus on the diagnosis and management of elderly patients with follicular lymphoma (2024)].Zhonghua xue ye xue za zhi = Zhonghua xueyexue zazhi · 2024Article
- The outcome of watchful waiting in patients with previously treated follicular lymphoma.Cancer medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Watchful waiting (WW) is one of the standard approaches for newly diagnosed follicular lymphoma (FL) patients with low-tumor burden. However, the impact of WW in FL patients at the first progression, remains unclear. We reviewed 206 FL patients who experienced the first progression after responding to the initial treatment at our institution between 1998 and 2017. Patients were classified into either the WW cohort (132 patients) or the immediate treatment cohort (74 patients). Overall, the median follow-up from the first progression was 79.8 months (range, 2.1-227.0 months). In the WW cohort, the estimated median time to next treatment (TNT) was 19.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.4-30.2), and 76.5% (95% CI, 68.0-84.1) of the patients subsequently underwent the second-line treatment at 5 years. There was a significant difference in the median time to treatment failure in the WW cohort (72.8 months; 95% CI, 64.6-94.0) compared to the immediate treatment cohort (23.3 months; 95% CI, 13.4-38.8) (HR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.48-3.06), whereas overall survival and the cumulative incidence of histological transformation were not significantly different between two cohorts. In a multivariate analysis, rituximab refractory status, progression of disease within 24 months from the induction of first-line therapy, and a high Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index score at diagnosis were significantly associated with shorter TNT. Interestingly, 15 patients (11%) of the WW cohort experienced spontaneous tumor regression during WW, and their TNT (median, 82.1 months, 95% CI, 11.7-NA) was longer than that of the remaining patients in the WW cohort (median, 16.5 months, 95% CI, 13.0-25.4), with a significant difference (p = 0.01). The results of the present study suggested that WW could be a safe and reasonable option even at the first progression for the selected FL patients, without a negative impact on clinical outcomes.
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.