ReviewHaematologica2026
Older patients with lymphoma: navigating a landscape of clinical controversies and barriers to innovation.
Review in Haematologica, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Older patients with lymphoma represent a growing, heterogeneous population whose care is challenged by diverse outcomes, limited evidence, and one-dimensional age definitions. Historically, arbitrary age thresholds such as ≥60 or ≥80 years have guided treatment decisions, yet they fail to capture the biological and functional diversity of aging and can limit opportunities for cure and progress. Current practice relies on arbitrary dose reductions in old age, such as R-miniCHOP, despite limited data on optimal intensity and benefit-risk trade-offs. Likewise, novel agents and combination therapies frequently demonstrate discrepant efficacy and safety across age groups, but systematic attempts to optimize dose for older patients are rarely prioritized. When it comes to clinical trials, documenting benefit of new therapies is more challenging in older patients due to high background mortality, which complicates interpretation of overall and progression-free survival and may lead to underpowered trials. Moreover, prognostic models developed in younger populations have limited applicability in older patients, as they overlook the broader range of clinically relevant outcomes in older patients, including treatment-related mortality, functional decline, and quality of life. Pre-therapeutic geriatric assessments are prognostic, but their predictive capability remains to be demonstrated in prospective trials before use as treatment decision support tools. Addressing these challenges requires reframing of "old age" to a multidimensional construct, incorporating geriatric assessment, patients' preferences, and biological age. More inclusive trial designs, dedicated dose-finding in older patients, and development of holistic, predictive models are critical to advance care. Without this, progress risks stalling for a growing group of our 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.