ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Outcomes and prognostic factors of alternative treatment regimens for angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma: a retrospective analysis.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), representing the second most prevalent subtype of peripheral T-cell lymphoma, currently lacks standardized frontline therapeutic strategies. Methods: In this study, we evaluated the survival outcomes and prognostic factors in 154 patients with AITL treated with one of four regimens: CHOP (cyclophosphamide, vincristine, epirubicin, prednisone), CHOPE (CHOP + etoposide), CPET (chidamide, prednisone, etoposide, thalidomide), or GDPT (gemcitabine, cisplatin, dexamethasone, thalidomide). Among them, 144 patients had complete survival follow-up data. Survival differences across groups were analyzed using the log-rank test, while variations in clinical parameters were assessed via chi-square tests and one-way ANOVA. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: The 5-year OS and PFS rates for the entire cohort were 36.6% (95% CI: 0.275-0.488) and 32.2% (95% CI: 0.233-0.451), respectively. Patients who were younger (<60 or <70 years), had Ann Arbor stage I/II disease, or exhibited lower Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status scores demonstrated significantly improved OS and PFS following treatment. Notably, among patients with ECOG <2, those treated with the CPET regimen achieved longer PFS and OS compared to those receiving CHOP or CHOPE. In contrast, for patients with ECOG ≥2, no significant survival differences were observed across treatment regimens. Both univariate and multivariate analyses identified ECOG performance status as an independent prognostic factor for survival outcomes. Conclusion: For patients with a low ECOG performance status, the CPET regimen may offer promising survival outcomes.
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.