ArticleBMC cancer2025
Early assessment of therapeutic efficacy in lymphoma patients via a blood-based multi-omics response monitoring test.
Article in BMC cancer, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPeriodic fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)-computed tomography (CT)/CT-based response examinations are the current standard for clinical assessment of lymphoma treatment response. In this prospective study, we applied a blood-based multi-omics test, SeekInClarity, to assess treatment response and to predict therapeutic outcomes in the major lymphoma subtypes.
methodsWe prospectively recruited 116 lymphoma patients from two clinical centers, and collected blood samples at pre-treatment (baseline) and after two treatment cycles (landmark) to calculate molecular tumor burden (MTB) score using SeekInClarity. The "molecular response" framework, developed based on the MTB dynamic changes between baseline and landmark, was used to predict prompt treatment efficacy across various first-line regimens.
resultsHigher MTB scores correlated with advanced tumor stages, with MTB+ ratios of 31.8%, 63.6%, 84.6%, and 91.2% for stage I, II, III, and IV respectively. At landmark, MTB+ patients (n = 41) exhibited significantly worse progression-free survival (PFS, HR 7.78, 95% CI 3.00-20.18, P < 0.0001) and overall survival (OS, HR 4.14, 95% CI 1.03-16.59, P < 0.05) compared to the MTB- patients (n = 75). Multivariable Cox regression analysis demonstrated that only molecular response and interim PET/CT were independent predictor of treatment outcome, outperforming the clinical biomarkers B2M and LDH. Among the 108 patients with interim PET/CT response, SeekInClarity further identified 24 (22.2%) patients as molecular non-responders. Of these, 8 (33.3%) patients experienced disease progression within 27.5 months, while only 10 (11.9%) patients among the remaining 84 molecular responders progressed within 31.7 months. This significant difference indicated that molecular non-responders have notably worse PFS than molecular responders (P < 0.01), particularly in aggressive B-cell and NK/T-cell lymphomas. These findings underscore the added value of molecular profiling in refining risk stratification beyond imaging alone.
conclusionsThe SeekInClarity-based molecular response predicts prompt treatment efficacy and serves as a valuable complementary tool for identifying non-responders among interim PET/CT response 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.