ArticleAnnals of hematology2026
Impact of the diagnosis-to-treatment interval on the survival of patients with CD5-positive diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.
Article in Annals of hematology, 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.
- Diagnosis-to-Treatment Interval Reflects Clinical Urgency and Disease Burden in T-Lymphoblastic Lymphoma: A Multicenter Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
29 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We analyzed the impact of the diagnosis-to-treatment interval (DTI) on survival in patients with CD5-positive diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (CD5 + DLBCL), using a data set of newly diagnosed patients. Among the 336 eligible patients, 247 (74%) received R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone), and 89 (26%) were treated with dose-adjusted (DA)-EPOCH-R (etoposide, prednisolone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab). The median DTI was 18 days (range 0–118). The short DTI (≤ 14 days) group included 135 patients (40%), and the long DTI (> 14 days) group included 201 patients (60%). Compared with the long DTI group, the short DTI group had more aggressive disease characteristics. Both the progression-free survival (PFS) (P = 0.01) and the overall survival (OS) (P < 0.01) were significantly inferior in the short DTI group compared with those in the long DTI group. Among 89 patients who received DA-EPOCH-R, no significant differences in PFS (P = 0.92) or OS (P = 0.86) were observed between the two groups. Multivariate analysis revealed that no DA-EPOCH-R was a risk factor for PFS in the short DTI group (P = 0.06). A short DTI was a negative prognostic factor in our CD5 + DLBCL cohort. DA-EPOCH-R could be considered a potential treatment option for patients with a short DTI.
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.