ArticleEJHaem2022
Frontline polatuzumab vedotin for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: A survey of clinician impressions.
Article in EJHaem, 2022. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cell-of-Origin Subtype Predicts Response to Polatuzumab Vedotin in Large B-cell Lymphoma.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of CAR T-cell therapy access for DLBCL patients: associated challenges and solutions in the four largest EU countries.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Frontline polatuzumab vedotin for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: A survey of clinician impressions.EJHaem · 2022Article
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 at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the POLARIX trial, pola-R-CHP demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared to R-CHOP in untreated intermediate- to high-risk DLBCL. We surveyed practicing clinicians regarding their interpretation of POLARIX, including impressions of efficacy, safety, and cost. Of 174 respondents, most from academic centers (82%) in the United States (57%), 70% stated they would not replace R-CHOP with pola-R-CHP due to insufficient PFS difference, lack of overall survival benefit, and excessive cost. Respondents not recommending pola-R-CHP expressed concerns about financial implications for both society and patients. We observed considerable heterogeneity in both study interpretation and plans for real-world implementation of pola-R-CHP.
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.