Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Retrospective cohort study compares safety and survival of Pola-R-CHP versus R-CHOP in DLBCL, suggesting comparable outcomes.
e19087 Background: Polatuzumab vedotin plus R-CHP (Pola-R-CHP) was approved as frontline therapy for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in 2022 after demonstrating improved progression-free survival compared with R-CHOP in the POLARIX trial, without a significant overall survival (OS) benefit at initial or long-term follow-up. However, real-world safety and survival outcomes in routine clinical practice, particularly among patients with higher comorbidity burden, remain incompletely characterized. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the TriNetX research network. Adult patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL receiving Pola-R-CHP or R-CHOP were identified. Cohorts were balanced using 1:1 propensity score matching for age, sex, race/ethnicity, baseline comorbidities, and available laboratory data (standardized mean differences <0.1). The primary outcome was OS. Secondary outcomes included sepsis, tumor lysis syndrome (TLS), anemia, and major cardiovascular events. Kaplan–Meier, Cox regression, and logistic regression were used. Results: After matching, 533 patients were included in each group. Mean age was similar between Pola-R-CHP and R-CHOP (67.6 ± 12.4 vs 66.4 ± 14.4 years), with 54.4% male patients. Baseline comorbidities were common and well-balanced, including diabetes (~22%), chronic kidney disease (~13%), heart failure (~8%), and chronic lung disease (~7%). Mean baseline LDH levels were identical between groups (329 ± 294 U/L; 91% availability). Overall survival was comparable between Pola-R-CHP and R-CHOP, with no statistically significant difference on time-to-event analysis (HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.74–1.15; p = 0.47) and overlapping Kaplan–Meier curves. Anemia occurred at similar rates in the Pola-R-CHP and R-CHOP groups (36.8% vs 34.5%; OR 1.10; 95% CI 0.86–1.42; p = 0.44), with no difference on time-to-event analysis (HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.83–1.25; log-rank p = 0.86). Major cardiovascular events were also comparable (11.3% vs 10.0%; OR 1.14; 95% CI 0.76–1.72; p = 0.53; HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.71–1.54; log-rank p = 0.83). TLS occurred numerically less frequently with Pola-R-CHP compared with R-CHOP (3.9% vs 5.4%), though this difference was not statistically significant (OR 0.71; 95% CI 0.40–1.27; p = 0.25; HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.38–1.18; log-rank p = 0.16). Sepsis occurred at similar rates in both groups (13.5% vs 11.8%; OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.77–1.78; p = 0.46), with no difference on time-to-event analysis (HR 1.09; 95% CI 0.74–1.61; log-rank p = 0.66). Conclusions: In this large, real-world propensity-matched cohort of patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL, Pola-R-CHP demonstrated overall survival and safety outcomes comparable to R-CHOP in a population with substantial comorbidity burden. These findings support the feasibility of Pola-R-CHP in routine clinical practice and extend the external validity of POLARIX trial results.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sridharan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: