ArticleTranslational cancer research2026
Comparative efficacy and safety of systemic therapies in transplant-eligible and ineligible relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Article in Translational cancer research, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The advent of novel therapies including chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells, bispecific antibodies (BsAbs), and antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), has markedly improved clinical outcomes for relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (R/R LBCL). However, direct comparisons of efficacy and safety among systemic treatments for R/R LBCL are lacking, complicating clinical decision-making. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to evaluate the systemic therapies across transplant-eligible and transplant-ineligible patients with R/R LBCL. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), secondary endpoints included event-free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results: The analysis included 14 RCTs comprising a total of 3,329 patients. Among the transplant-eligible cohort (7 evaluated regimens), CAR-T therapies maximized disease control; lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) ranked highest for PFS [hazard ratio (HR) =0.42; 95% credible intervals (CrI): 0.28-0.64] and EFS (HR =0.37, 95% CrI: 0.26-0.54), whereas axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) was associated with the highest incidence of grade ≥3 TEAEs [risk ratio (RR) =2.09; 95% CrI: 1.08-4.19]. In the transplant-ineligible cohort (9 evaluated regimens), glofitamab plus gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (Glofit-GemOx) ranked highest for PFS (HR =0.32; 95% CrI: 0.23-0.45), while polatuzumab vedotin plus bendamustine and rituximab (Pola-BR) yielded the maximum benefit for OS (HR =0.42; 95% CrI: 0.24-0.73) and ORR [odds ratio (OR) =5.21; 95% CrI: 2.01-14.3]. Both regimens were associated with higher toxicities, but remained overall manageable. Conclusions: This NMA provides a comprehensive comparison of systemic treatment strategies for R/R LBCL regarding efficacy and safety profiles.
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.