Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Demonstrates improved survival outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed DLBCL, suggesting effective novel therapies.
Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) represents the most common non-Hodgkin lymphoma, in which ~60–85% of patients achieve a complete response (CR) with standard frontline chemoimmunotherapy approaches [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Despite these promising response rates, ~40% of patients can develop relapsed or refractory disease, and significant research efforts have been devoted to improving the durability and response with frontline therapies through the incorporation of novel agents [ 1 , 2 ]. Due to its biologic heterogeneity, DLBCL is subclassified by cell of origin (COO) into germinal center B-cell (GCB) and activated B-cell-like (ABC), the latter being considered in the “non-GCB” DLBCL group and heralding inferior outcomes with 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) as low as 40% [ 4 , 5 ]. However, non-GCB DLBCL harbors multiple targetable vulnerabilities, including chronic activation of B-cell transcription factors for differentiation (i.e. nuclear factor kB, IRF4) [ 6 , 7 , 8 ]. Harnessing these biological vulnerabilities, the Smart Start trial (NCT02636322) served as a proof-of-concept that a frontline non-cytotoxic RLI combination regimen utilizing rituximab with the immunomodulatory agent, lenalidomide, and Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, ibrutinib, results in excellent efficacy outcomes with a favorable safety profile [ 9 ]. After an initial lead-in phase with RLI targeted therapy for 2 cycles, 86% achieved an overall response rate (ORR), following which 95% of patients achieved a CR after receiving RLI-chemotherapy from cycles 3 to 8 [ 9 ]. Furthermore, with a median follow-up of 31 months, a 2-year PFS and overall survival (OS) of 91% and 97% were observed, respectively [ 9 ]. Herein, we now report the seven-year updated analysis of the safety and efficacy outcomes from the Smart Start trial.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chohan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: