ArticleCancer medicine2026
Retrospective Cohort Analysis of Treatment Patterns, Survival, and Cost-Effectiveness in Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma in Lower Austria (2018-2022).
Article in Cancer medicine, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundR/R DLBCL is an aggressive malignancy with limited treatment options. Novel immunotherapies have improved outcomes in selected clinical-trial populations, but their effectiveness in real-world settings remains unclear. Their substantial costs also pose challenges for healthcare systems.
methodsThis exploratory study evaluated the efficacy and costs of available therapies in a real-world population. Two retrospective analysis approaches were used: First, we compared calendar-based cohorts: A conventional-treatment period (1 January 2018-31 December 2019), which predates EMA approval of Polatuzumab-vedotin, and a modern-treatment period (1 January 2020-31 December 2022). Second, because treatments overlapped across periods, we additionally grouped patients by therapy exposure and compared those receiving any modern therapy at any stage with those treated exclusively with conventional regimens.
resultsComparing the calendar-based periods provided limited insights, as therapies unavailable in the earlier period could still be used in subsequent treatment lines. In contrast, grouping patients by exposure to modern therapy at any stage showed a clear survival benefit: Median OS was 20 vs. 5 months (95% CI: 1.8-38.2 vs. 3.0-7.0; p = 0.022). This advantage was associated with significantly higher mean costs (€178,513.08 vs. €15,185.08; p < 0.001), resulting in an incremental cost of €10,889 per additional month of survival.
conclusionModern therapies for r/r DLBCL have significantly improved survival rates, but their high costs necessitate careful cost-effectiveness assessments to ensure they are integrated optimally into clinical practice. Additionally, our findings indicate that calendar-based comparisons can be misleading, since novel treatments do not simply "start" and "stop" at approval dates-a crucial methodological insight that is highly generalizable to real-world evidence studies. Grouping patients by actual therapy exposure offers a more accurate evaluation of clinical benefits and economic impact when new treatments become routine. Achieving equitable access to treatment while maintaining healthcare sustainability will require coordinated efforts among clinicians, researchers, and policymakers.
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.