ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2023
Comparative analysis of rituximab or obinutuzumab combined with CHOP in first-line treatment of follicular lymphoma.
Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-world single-center analysis of efficacy and safety in newly diagnosed marginal zone lymphoma.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2026Article
- Development and validation of web-based risk score predicting prognostic nomograms for elderly patients with primary colorectal lymphoma: A population-based study.Journal of translational internal medicine · 2024Article
- Efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of obinutuzumab in patients with follicular lymphoma: a rapid review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Review
- Rituximab versus obinutuzumab-based first-line chemoimmunotherapy for follicular lymphoma-a real-world multicenter retrospective cohort study.Annals of hematology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRituximab (R) or obinutuzumab (G) combined with CHOP chemotherapy are used in previously untreated follicular lymphoma (FL). The aim is to compare in real life setting the efficacy and safety of these therapeutic strategies and assess the economic impact of introducing G.
methodsThis retrospective study, performed in 3 centers, included data from all patients who received R-CHOP or G-CHOP for previous untreated FL from June 1st, 2016 to December 31st, 2020. Progression-Free Survival (PFS) were estimated according to the Kaplan-Meier method. A budgetary impact model was performed from the French health care system's perspective.
resultsN = 124 patients were included (58 G-CHOP; 66 R-CHOP). Fifty-one and 57 patients achieved a complete response at the end of induction in the G-CHOP and R-CHOP group, respectively. PFS was not significantly longer in the G-CHOP group (HR 0.28; 95% CI 0.08-0.97; p value = 0.14). Hematological toxicity occurred more frequently with G-CHOP than R-CHOP during induction treatment (n = 58; 100% vs. n = 61; 92%), including higher severe neutropenia (grade ≥ 3) (n = 26; 45% vs. n = 23; 35%). Infusion-related reactions during the first infusion occurred more frequently with G-CHOP (n = 19; 33% vs. n = 16; 24%). The introduction of a completed G treatment (induction and maintenance) results in an additional cumulative cost per patient estimated at more than €30,000.
conclusionSimilar results were found in the GALLIUM subgroup analysis study, suggesting that at this time there is no absolute benefit to administer G-CHOP instead of R-CHOP in all patients with previously untreated FL and may encourage clinical and economic trials including quality of life data.
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.