ArticleEuropean journal of haematology2025
A Real-World Data-Based Analysis of Prognostic Indices as Part of Trial Eligibility Criteria in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Patients.
Article in European journal of haematology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesRecent front-line clinical trials used the International Prognostic Index (IPI) to identify trial-eligible patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). However, many IPI-like variants with improved accuracy have been developed over the years for rituximab-treated patients.
methodsWe assessed the impact of International Prognostic Indices on patient enrolment in clinical trials, aiming to exclude low-risk IPI patients based on POLARIX/EPCORE DLBCL-2 trial criteria.
resultsWe identified 2877 patients in the Danish Lymphoma Registry who would have been eligible for the POLARIX trial if patients with IPI 0-1 scores were included. IPI and NCCN-IPI assigned 33.3% and 11.9% of patients to the low-risk group, respectively. Shorter 5-year overall survival (91.4% vs. 97.5%), higher relapse rate (9.9% vs. 4.4%), and more deaths (16.1% vs. 4.4%) occurred in the low-risk IPI group compared with low-risk NCCN-IPI group. Analyzed models failed to identify true high-risk patients with poor prognosis. Similar results were found in the confirmatory cohort developed based on EPCORE DLBCL-2 trial eligibility criteria.
conclusionTrue low-risk patients are more optimal identified by NCCN-IPI and should be excluded from front-line clinical trials due to their excellent prognosis. However, additional high-risk factors besides clinical prognostic models need to be considered when selecting trial-eligible patients.
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.