ReviewInnere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany)2025
[What is established in the treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma?]
Review in Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany), 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diffuse large B‑cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma, with a median age at diagnosis of 71 years, predominantly affecting older adults. Risk factors include immunodeficiency, autoimmune disorders, viral infections, and certain environmental exposures, although most cases lack a clear predisposition. Diagnosis is based on lymph node excision, histopathological and molecular analysis, and positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) staging. First-line standard therapy is R‑CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone), de-escalated to four cycles for young, low-risk patients (FLYER trial). For patients with International Prognostic Index (IPI) ≥ 2, the POLARIX trial showed superior progression-free survival with polatuzumab vedotin-R-CHP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, prednisone) over R‑CHOP. Older patients are generally treated with dose-reduced R‑mini-CHOP or alternatives. In relapsed/refractory disease, chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T‑cell therapy with axicabtagene ciloleucel or lisocabtagene maraleucel has replaced high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation for refractory or early relapses, including transplant-ineligible patients. Additional antibody-based therapies-such as polatuzumab-bendamustine-rituximab, tafasitamab-lenalidomide, loncastuximab, and bispecific antibodies (glofitamab, epcoritamab, odronextamab)-expand treatment options, some achieving durable remissions. Glofitamab plus gemcitabine-oxaliplatin is a new standard for first relapse when CAR T‑cell therapy is not feasible or as bridging before CAR T. Future directions include earlier integration of immunotherapies, personalized strategies guided by genetic subgroups, and broader use of liquid biopsy for subtyping, minimal residual disease detection, and treatment guidance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41125821What 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.