ArticleBMC cancer2026
Geriatric assessment-based therapy for older patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: results of a two-decade clinical experience.
Article in BMC cancer, 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTreating older patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is challenging due to heterogeneity in fitness and tolerance to chemotherapy with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone (R-CHOP). Thus, we previously established the Age, Comorbidity, and Albumin (ACA) index for this population, a geriatric assessment comprising four categories. However, its role in treatment decision-making remains unclear.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective study in patients ≥ 65 years old with DLBCL who were treated with R-CHOP between 2015 and 2022 (post-ACA cohort), evaluating initial dose intensity (IDI), relative dose intensity (RDI), and 2-year overall survival (OS). During this period, dose intensities of cytotoxic drugs were adjusted by the multidisciplinary oncology team according to the ACA index categories (Excellent, Good, Moderate, and Poor). Then, we compared these outcomes with a historical cohort of patients receiving R-CHOP between 2001 and 2012 (pre-ACA cohort), where the dose intensities were determined by each physician’s discretion. Propensity score matching (PSM), adjusted for the International Prognostic Index and the ACA index, was used to balance baseline characteristics between the cohorts.
resultsIn the post-ACA cohort comprising 135 patients with a median age of 76 years (range: 65–91 years), the median IDI, median RDI, and 2-year OS according to the aforementioned ACA categories were 97%, 80%, 70%, and 70% (p < 0.001); 93%, 78%, 62%, and 59% (p < 0.001); and 96%, 89%, 66%, and 51% (p < 0.001), respectively. After PSM, 98 patients from the pre- and post-ACA cohorts were paired. Despite well-balanced patient demographics, granulocyte-colony stimulating factor prophylaxis was more commonly used in the post-ACA group (100% vs. 49%, p < 0.001). Consequently, the post-ACA group had higher median IDI and RDI (80% vs. 68%, p < 0.001, and 77% vs. 47%, p < 0.001, respectively) and better 2-year OS (81% vs. 66%, p = 0.014).
conclusionsThe ACA index can serve as a feasible standard-of-care framework for individualized dose intensity adjustment in older patients with DLBCL. Although this strategy organizes treatment decision-making, vulnerable patients still exhibit significantly inferior outcomes, highlighting the need for further therapeutic optimization and novel strategies.
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.