Trial reportBlood advances2025
Subgroup analysis of older patients ≥60 years with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in the phase 3 POLARIX study.
Trial report in Blood advances, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03274492 (A Phase III, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Polatuzumab Vedotin in Combination With Rituximab and CHP), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
A Phase III, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Polatuzumab Vedotin in Combination With Rituximab and CHP (R-CHP) Versus Rituximab and CHOP (R-CHOP) in Previously Untreated Patients With Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Inclusion, characteristics, and reporting of older patients in recent registration trials for DLBCL.Blood advances · 2026Pooled it
- Five-Year Outcomes of the POLARIX Study Comparing Pola-R-CHP and R-CHOP in Patients With Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2025Trial
- Older patients with lymphoma: navigating a landscape of clinical controversies and barriers to innovation.Haematologica · 2026Review
- Real-World Safety and Efficacy of Pola-R-CHP in Previously Untreated DLBCL: POLASTAR Interim Analysis of 500 Patients.Cancer science · 2026Article
- Molecular Insights and Novel Therapies for Lymphoproliferative Disorders.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Article
- Article
- Management of diffuse large B‑cell lymphoma in older adults: current strategies and emerging directions.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2026Review
- Defining and Addressing the Current Unmet Medical Needs for the Frontline Treatment of Advanced Stage Aggressive Large B-Cell Lymphoma: A Perspective From an Ad Hoc Panel of Italian Experts.Hematological oncology · 2025Review
- Dose-Attenuated-Polatuzumab Vedotine plus CHP vs. Dose-Attenuated -R-CHOP in Patients Aged ≥ 80 Years with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: A Retrospective, Propensity Score-Matched Analysis Stratified by Simplified Frailty Score.Mediterranean journal of hematology and infectious diseases · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abstractIn the phase 3 POLARIX study, Pola-R-CHP (polatuzumab vedotin plus rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone) improved progression-free survival (PFS) vs R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) in patients with previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). This post hoc subgroup analysis of POLARIX evaluated the efficacy and safety of Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP in older patients aged ≥60, ≥65, ≥70, and ≥75 years. As of 15 June 2022 (median follow-up, 40 months), 629 patients aged ≥60 years were included (Pola-R-CHP, n = 311; R-CHOP, n = 318). Clinically meaningful improvements in PFS with Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP were observed across all age groups, particularly in patients aged ≥70 years whereby the risk of disease progression, relapse, or death was reduced by 37% (unstratified hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.96). In patients aged ≥60 years, overall survival was similar with Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP (unstratified HR, 0. 99; 95% CI, 0.67-1.47). Safety profiles were similar for Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP among patients aged ≥60 years, including rates of grade 3 to 4 adverse events (AEs; 62.7% vs 61.5%), grade 3 to 5 infections (15.0% vs 12.9%), and grade 5 AEs (3.6% vs 3.2%); no novel toxicities were reported. Incidence of grade 3 to 4 febrile neutropenia was higher with Pola-R-CHP than R-CHOP (16.3% vs 7.6%), highlighting the importance of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor prophylaxis in older patients receiving Pola-R-CHP. The benefit-risk profile favored Pola-R-CHP vs R-CHOP in older patients with previously untreated DLBCL. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT03274492.
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.