ArticleAdvances in therapy2026
Confounder Identification in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: Findings from an Expert Panel of German and Austrian Hematologists.
Article in Advances in therapy, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRobust confounder identification is essential for valid indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs), particularly in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL), where treatment pathways are heterogeneous and comparative evidence between chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies remains limited. This study aimed to validate clinically relevant prognostic factors and treatment-effect modifiers for comparative effectiveness analyses in DLBCL using a structured expert consensus approach.
methodsCandidate variables were identified through a prior systematic literature review and refined by clinical review. A panel of six experienced hematologists and oncologists from Germany and Austria participated in a two-round expert elicitation process. They assessed the importance of each variable as a prognostic factor and/or treatment-effect modifier using a three-point Likert scale. Variables were categorized into relevance tiers according to predefined consensus thresholds and subsequently allocated to specific clinical endpoints, including progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), response outcomes, and CAR-T-related toxicities.
resultsSeveral variables achieved high consensus as prognostic factors. Tier A prognostic factors included ECOG performance status, age, disease histology, International Prognostic Index (IPI), disease stage, elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), bulky disease, extranodal involvement, tumor burden, primary refractory disease, number of relapses, time to relapse, and prior lines of therapy. Unanimous agreement was observed for ECOG performance status, IPI, disease histology, disease stage, elevated LDH, and primary refractory disease as prognostic factors for survival outcomes. Compared with prognostic factors, substantially lower agreement was observed for treatment-effect modifiers, particularly for response-based outcomes. Tier A-effect modifiers included primary refractory disease, time to first relapse, best response to prior therapy, bridging therapy, CAR-T product type, and CAR-T-related response characteristics. Bridging therapy was the only modifier achieving unanimous agreement for complete and overall response rates. Tumor burden-related variables were considered important for both efficacy and toxicity outcomes, including cytokine release syndrome and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome.
conclusionsClinicians demonstrated strong consensus regarding established prognostic factors related to disease aggressiveness, treatment resistance, patient fitness, and tumor burden in R/R DLBCL. Agreement on treatment-effect modifiers was more limited, reflecting the limited evidence currently available.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42842182What 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.