ArticleClinical and experimental medicine2026
Real-world single-center analysis of efficacy and safety in newly diagnosed marginal zone lymphoma.
Article in Clinical and experimental medicine, 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
This study aimed to analyze newly diagnosed marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) patients treated in the Department of Hematology at our center. A retrospective analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles of various treatment regimens for MZL. Data were retrospectively collected from 177 newly diagnosed MZL patients hospitalized in the Department of Hematology at Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University between October 2006 and October 2024. Compared to chemotherapy alone, treatment combining CD20 monoclonal antibody with chemotherapy significantly improved the complete response (CR) rate in patients with MZL. Additionally, the incidence of progression of disease within 24 months (POD24) was significantly lower in patients receiving CD20 monoclonal antibody ± chemotherapy than in those treated with chemotherapy alone (11.7% vs. 35.7%, P = 0.018). Comparative analysis of rituximab combined with various chemotherapy regimens revealed no statistically significant differences in either short-term or long-term efficacy (P > 0.05). When comparing short-term outcomes at initial diagnosis, numerically higher CR rates (86.7% vs. 56.3%) and overall response rates (ORR) (100% vs. 90.6%) were observed with the obinutuzumab (G) regimen ± chemotherapy compared to the rituximab (R) regimen ± chemotherapy; however, these differences were not statistically significant (P = 0.144 and P = 0.541, respectively). Compared with chemotherapy alone, CD20 monoclonal antibody-containing regimens significantly improved CR rates and effectively prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in MZL patients. No statistically significant differences were found among various chemotherapy regimens combined with rituximab, irrespective of whether short-term or long-term outcomes were assessed. Similarly, no significant differences were observed between obinutuzumab (G) ± chemotherapy and rituximab (R) ± chemotherapy in terms of PFS, CR rate, or ORR. However, grade 3–4 adverse events occurred more frequently in patients treated with the G ± chemotherapy regime.
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.