ArticleExperimental hematology & oncology2025
Impact of diagnosis to treatment interval on outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed marginal zone lymphoma - a US multisite study.
Article in Experimental hematology & oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnosis-to-Treatment Interval Reflects Clinical Urgency and Disease Burden in T-Lymphoblastic Lymphoma: A Multicenter Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Impact of Time-to-Treatment Initiation and First Inter-Cycle Delay in Patients with Hodgkin Lymphoma.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Diagnosis-to-treatment interval (DTI) is an important prognostic factor in patients with newly diagnosed aggressive lymphomas, however the impact of DTI on outcomes in marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) is unknown. In this multicenter retrospective cohort study, we included adult patients with MZL who received first-line immunochemotherapy within 120 days of diagnosis at 10 US medical centers. Patients who received treatment within 60 days from their diagnosis were classified into the short DTI group and those who received treatment beyond 60 days into long DTI group. The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS), while secondary objectives included overall survival (OS) and cumulative incidence of histologic transformation (HT) between the two groups. Of the 870 patients with newly diagnosed MZL, 177 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in this analysis. Among these 144 (81%) were in the short DTI group and 33 (19%) in the long DTI group. In the univariable analysis, presence of B symptoms was associated with short DTI and remained significantly associated with short DTI in the multivariable analysis (OR = 11.91, p = 0.017). Short DTI was not associated with a statistically different PFS or OS compared to long DTI in the univariable or in multivariable analysis. The cumulative incidence of HT was not significantly different between the two groups. This is the first study to-date to report on the association of DTI on outcomes in MZL patients. This lack of prognostic utility of DTI in newly diagnosed MZL, in contrast to aggressive B-cell lymphomas, may be intrinsically linked to the underlying disease biology.
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.