Efficacy and Safety of Polatuzumab Vedotin Plus Rituximab, Cyclophosphamide, Doxorubicin and Prednisone for Previously Untreated Diffuse Large B‐Cell Lymphoma: A Real‐World, Multi‐Center, Retrospective Cohort Study
Abstract
Polatuzumab vedotin plus R‐CHP (Pola‐R‐CHP) is approved as a new standard first‐line therapy for diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (DLBCL) based on the POLARIX trial. However, real‐world data on its efficacy and safety in unselected patients is lacking. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to evaluate Pola‐R‐CHP versus R‐CHOP outcomes in routine clinical practice in China. This is a multi‐institutional retrospective cohort study and included all consecutive patients that received at least one dose of polatuzumab vedotin up until February 2024. A total of 600 eligible patients from 6 centers were identified, 131 receiving Pola‐R‐CHP and 469 R‐CHOP. After 1:2 propensity score matching, 128 pairs were obtained for further survival and prognosis analysis. With a median follow‐up of 12.8 months, 12‐month progression‐free survival (PFS) was numerically higher with Pola‐R‐CHP versus R‐CHOP (90.3% vs. 84.1%, p = 0.18). Benefits were consistently observed across molecular subgroups, especially advanced stage, ECOG ≥ 2, extranodal involvement ≥ 2 and non‐GCB group. The complete response rate of the Pola‐R‐CHP group was higher than that of the RCHOP group (86.8% vs. 79.7%; p = 0.09), but there was no statistical difference. Safety profiles were comparable, with no new concerns. Among 128 patients treated with Pola‐R‐CHP, 96 underwent gene sequencing analysis: MCD (25.0%), EZB (13.5%), combined subtype (12.5%), ST2 (9.4%), and other/unclassifiable subtype (30.2%). The most common…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 600 participants or records.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Safety and efficacy of COVID‐19 vaccines: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of controlled and randomized clinical trials
- Accuracy Comparison between Robot-Assisted Dental Implant Placement and Static/Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies
- Determinants of passive antibody efficacy in SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Cleaning efficacy of EDDY versus ultrasonically-activated irrigation in root canals: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Bonding Efficacy of Universal Resin Adhesives to Zirconia Substrates: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- In vitro antimicrobial activity of extracts and essential oils of Cinnamomum, Salvia, and Mentha spp. against foodborne pathogens: A meta-analysis study
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.