Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39825862›Full record

ReviewBlood advances2025

Definitions and use of tumor bulk in phase 3 lymphoma trials: a comprehensive literature review.

Luke Wang, Eliza Chung, Cameron Wellard, Allison Barraclough, Belinda A Campbell, Geoffrey Chong, Pietro R Di Ciaccio, Gareth P Gregory, Greg Hapgood, Anna M Johnston and 5 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Blood advances, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Luke WangSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0009-0004-4311-6879
Eliza ChungSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6642-1033
Cameron WellardSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6115-5394
Allison BarracloughDepartment of Haematology, Fiona Stanley Hospital, Perth, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1615-0540
Belinda A CampbellDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7316-8723
Geoffrey ChongBallarat Regional Integrated Cancer Centre, Ballarat, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4006-2380
Pietro R Di CiaccioDepartment of Haematology, Canberra Hospital, Canberra, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9282-8619
Gareth P GregorySchool of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4170-0682
Greg HapgoodPrincess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7980-8496
Anna M JohnstonRoyal Hobert Hospital, Hobart, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5959-5203
Constantine TamAlfred Health, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9759-5017
Stephen OpatSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0308-6458
Erica M WoodSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7527-2340
Zoe K McQuiltenSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9698-7185
Eliza A HawkesSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0376-2559

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

abstractTumor "bulk" has historically been considered an important prognostic marker and a clinical tool to guide treatment in patients with lymphoma. However, its use and definitions in trial designs vary significantly, and it is unclear how this has influenced the relevance of bulk in contemporary practice. This comprehensive literature review evaluated the definitions, applications, and prognostic impact of bulk in phase 3 randomized trials in 4 major lymphoma subtypes. Overall, 87 studies were identified across follicular lymphoma (FL), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL), and Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) with a wide range of bulk thresholds used (5 cm, 6 cm, 7 cm, 7.5 cm, 10 cm, and >1/3 mediastinal mass ratio [MMR]). The most common threshold was as follows: FL, 7 cm (58%); DLBCL, 7.5 cm and 10 cm (44% each); PTCL, 7.5 cm (66%); and HL, one-third MMR (91%). Bulk threshold was used by trials to determine eligibility (66%), stratification (24%), as a prognostic risk factor (37%), and as a decision tool for risk-adapted treatment, for example, radiotherapy (29%); however, bulk definitions used for these varied both between, and within, lymphoma subtypes and even within single trials in 25%. Furthermore, 32 studies incorporated bulk in prognostic analyses with only 5 showing significance for differential survival outcomes. Our analysis demonstrates high inconsistency in thresholds defining tumor bulk and use of bulk in phase 3 lymphoma trials across eligibility, stratification, therapeutic risk adaptation, and prognostication. This highlights an urgent need for international consensus on definitions of bulk within trials to improve its prognostic and predictive values and refine its application in clinical practice.

Indexed as

LymphomaTumor BurdenClinical Trials, Phase III as TopicHumansPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID39825862
PMCPMC12124615

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.