Advances in therapy · 2020
A Systematic Review of the Clinical Efficacy of Treatments in Relapsed or Refractory Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Thuresson Per-Olof, Vander Velde Nancy, Gupta Palvi, Talbot Jonathan
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Novel treatment options are needed to improve outcomes in transplant-ineligible relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL). This systematic literature review evaluated clinical evidence on treatments for patients with R/R DLBCL ineligible for, or relapsed following, stem cell transplantation.
METHODS: We assessed the feasibility of conducting an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) or network meta-analysis (NMA) to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of polatuzumab vedotin in combination with bendamustine + rituximab versus other relevant treatments.
RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies were identified, of which 20 were eligible [seven randomized, controlled trials (RCTs); 13 observational/single-arm trials]. Due to a lack of RCTs, an ITC/NMA summary of the relative efficacy and safety of the treatment options was not possible. Only two of the seven RCTs had positive outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the paucity of published RCTs to establish the comparative efficacy of treatments for transplant-ineligible R/R DLBCL and lack of standard of care in this setting.
METHODS: We assessed the feasibility of conducting an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) or network meta-analysis (NMA) to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of polatuzumab vedotin in combination with bendamustine + rituximab versus other relevant treatments.
RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies were identified, of which 20 were eligible [seven randomized, controlled trials (RCTs); 13 observational/single-arm trials]. Due to a lack of RCTs, an ITC/NMA summary of the relative efficacy and safety of the treatment options was not possible. Only two of the seven RCTs had positive outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the paucity of published RCTs to establish the comparative efficacy of treatments for transplant-ineligible R/R DLBCL and lack of standard of care in this setting.