ArticleHemaSphere2023
Nationwide Assessment of Patient Trajectories in Mantle Cell Lymphoma: The Swedish MCL
Article in HemaSphere, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ibrutinib and rituximab versus immunochemotherapy in patients with previously untreated mantle cell lymphoma (ENRICH): a randomised, open-label, phase 2/3 superiority trial.Lancet (London, England) · 2025Trial
- First-Line Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor-Based Regimens for Mantle Cell Lymphoma.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Review
- Disease progression more than 6 years after treatment impacts overall survival in mantle cell lymphoma.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Accumulation of high-risk genetic features after chemoimmunotherapy: A longitudinal study in mantle cell lymphoma.Leukemia · 2026Article
- Disease management landscape in patients with mantle cell lymphoma in Japan: a real-world study.Future oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- Article
- Real-world outcomes with ibrutinib in relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma: a Danish population-based study.Blood neoplasia · 2025Article
- Challenges of treating mantle cell lymphoma in older adults.Leukemia & lymphoma · 2025Review
- Ibrutinib, lenalidomide, and rituximab in relapsed mantle cell lymphoma: Long-term follow-up of the Nordic Lymphoma Group MCL6 Philemon trial.HemaSphere · 2025Article
- Limited stage mantle cell lymphoma: A real-world study of primary treatment and prognosis in Sweden 2006-2018.HemaSphere · 2025Article
- Clinical characteristics and outcomes of 476 mantle cell lymphoma patients aged 80 years and older.Blood cancer journal · 2024Article
- Infections in patients with mantle cell lymphoma.HemaSphere · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a B-cell malignancy currently considered incurable. Although some patients obtain prolonged remission after first-line chemoimmunotherapy, many will need several treatment lines. Here, we present a nationwide assessment of treatment strategies, time to progression and survival in MCL. All patients diagnosed with MCL 2006-2018 were identified in the Swedish Lymphoma Register. Information on all lines of therapy was extracted from the medical records. Overall and progression-free survival (OS and PFS) were assessed through August 2021. In total, 1367 patients were included (median age, 71 years) and median follow-up was 6.8 years. Two hundred and one (15%) were managed initially with watch-and-wait, but 1235 (90%) eventually received treatment. The most frequently used first-line regimens were rituximab-bendamustine (BR) (n = 368; 30%) and Nordic MCL2 (n = 342; 28%). During follow-up, 630 patients (46%) experienced relapse/progression and 546 (40%) received second-line treatment. The most frequently used second-line regimen was BR (n = 185; 34%) but otherwise a wide variety of second-line treatments were used. Further, 382 and 228 patients experienced a second or third relapse/progression, respectively. Median PFS after first (PFS-1), second (PFS-2), third (PFS-3), and fourth (PFS-4) treatment lines was 29.4, 8.9, 4.3, and 2.7 months. Patients with early progression, defined as a PFS-1 <24 months, had an inferior median OS of 13 versus 37 months in patients with later relapse. For patients treated with frontline BR, however, time to relapse had no impact on later outcome. By use of nationwide population-based data, we provide important benchmarks for future studies of all treatment lines in MCL.
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.