Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35403948›Full record

SynthesisAdvances in therapy2022

Tafasitamab Plus Lenalidomide Versus 3 Rituximab-Based Treatments for Non-Transplant Eligible Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison.

Raul Cordoba, Thibaud Prawitz, Tracy Westley, Anuj Sharma, Sumeet Ambarkhane, Venediktos Kapetanakis, Lorenzo Sabatelli

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Advances in therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Sequencing therapy in relapsed DLBCL.Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Raul CordobaFundacion Jimenez Diaz University Hospital, Health Research Institute IIS-FJD, Madrid, Spain.
Thibaud PrawitzEvidera Inc., Paris, France.
Tracy WestleyEvidera Inc., Montreal, QC, Canada.
Anuj SharmaEvidera Inc., Montreal, QC, Canada.
Sumeet Ambarkhane *MorphoSys AG, Planegg, Germany.
Venediktos KapetanakisEvidera Inc., London, UK.
Lorenzo SabatelliIncyte Biosciences International Sàrl, Morges, Switzerland. lsabatelli@incyte.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7373-9306
EVRAZ (United Kingdom) · GBHospital Universitario Fundación Jiménez Díaz · ESIncyte (United States) · USMorphoSys (Germany) · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTafasitamab plus lenalidomide (TAFA + LEN) received accelerated US Food and Drug Administration approval and conditional European Medicines Agency approval for treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL) not eligible for autologous stem cell transplant. This study investigates the relative efficacy of TAFA + LEN versus comparator treatments.

methodsMatching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) of TAFA + LEN were performed using data from L-MIND, and comparator studies assessing rituximab-based combination therapies, including polatuzumab vedotin + bendamustine + rituximab (POLA + BR) bendamustine + rituximab (BR), and gemcitabine + oxaliplatin + rituximab (R-GEMOX) to provide relative efficacy estimates for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DOR), objective response rate (ORR), and complete response rate (CRR). Patient-level data from L-MIND were weighted to match reported distributions of clinically validated prognostic factors and effect modifiers in comparator trials. MAIC results versus multiple BR studies were pooled using meta-analysis.

resultsMAICs were feasible versus POLA + BR and BR. Compared to POLA + BR, TAFA + LEN was associated with significantly longer DOR [hazard ratio (HR) 0.34 (95% CI 0.12, 0.98); p = 0.045]. Due to concerns about the proportional hazard assumption for OS and PFS, separate HRs were estimated before and after 4 months of follow-up. OS after 4 months, was significantly greater for TAFA + LEN versus POLA + BR [HR 0.41 (95% CI 0.19, 0.90); p = 0.026]. Compared with BR, TAFA + LEN was associated with significantly improved OS [GO29365 comparator trial: HR 0.39 (95% CI 0.18, 0.82); p = 0.014], PFS (pooled data: HR 0.39 (95% CI 0.29, 0.53); p < 0.001], DOR [pooled data: HR 0.35 (95% CI 0.25, 0.50); p < 0.001], and CRR [pooled data: odds ratio 2.43 (95% CI 1.33, 4.41); p = 0.004].

conclusionIn MAIC analyses, treatment with TAFA + LEN for R/R DLBCL provided better OS and PFS outcomes than standard treatment regimens. Validation from large, randomized, phase 3 clinical trials is required to confirm these results.

Indexed as

Lymphoma, Large B-Cell, DiffuseAdultAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBendamustine HydrochlorideHumansLenalidomideRituximabTreatment OutcomeAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedBendamustine HydrochlorideLenalidomideRituximabtafasitamabDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaIndirect treatment comparisonLenalidomideMatching-adjusted indirect comparisonRelapsed/refractoryRituximabTafasitamab

Identifiers

PMID35403948
PMCPMC9122850
OpenAlexW4223423738

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.