ArticleAnnals of hematology2024
Comparison of tucidinostat with CHOP-like versus CHOP-like in first-line treatment of peripheral T-cell lymphoma: a single-center real-world study.
Article in Annals of hematology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Adverse events of romidepsin versus tucidinostat for peripheral T-cell lymphoma: a pharmacovigilance study using the Japanese adverse drug event report database.Journal of pharmaceutical health care and sciences · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tucidinostat has been approved by the Chinese FDA for relapsed/refractory Peripheral T cell lymphoma (PTCL), but its efficacy in newly diagnosed PTCL has not been confirmed. In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy of tucidinostat combined with CHOP-like (C + CHT) versus CHOP-like alone (CHT) in newly diagnosed PTCL patients. Of the PTCL patients, 109 were newly diagnosed. Patients in the C + CHT group who achieved objective response received tucidinostat maintenance therapy. A total of 36 pairs (n = 72) were matched at a ratio of 1:1 using propensity scoring. The matching criteria included: whether the Prognostic index for the peripheral T-cell lymphoma-not otherwise specified subtype (PIT) was ≥ 2, the pathological subtype, age > 60 years, and gender (matching tolerance = 0.024). A significantly higher objective response rate (ORR) (P = 0.016), 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) (P = 0.026), and 2-year survival rate (P = 0.017) was observed for the C + CHT group as compared to the CHT group. After propensity score matching (PSM), the C + CHT group as compared to the CHT group displayed significantly longer PFS (P = 0.035) and overall survival (OS) (P = 0.029). For the C + CHT group in the per-protocol set, the effect values showed a significant benefit in terms of both PFS (P = 0.027) and OS (P = 0.019). Common grade 3-4 haematological adverse events (AEs), had comparable incidence in each group; while common non-haematological AEs, including elevated AST and ALT were higher in the C + CHT group than in the CHT group. Our study suggests that the tucidinostat with CHOP-like regimen and sequential tucidinostat maintenance after objective remission provides a promising therapeutic approach for treating newly diagnosed PTCL patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39448422What 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.