» Articles » PMID: 39088571

Polatuzumab Vedotin Combined with Bendamustine and Rituximab for Relapsed/refractory Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma: A Systematic Review Protocol

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2024 Aug 1
PMID 39088571
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is an aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma subtype with a significant relapse rate and poor prognosis in relapsed/refractory (R/R) patients. Polatuzumab vedotin in combination with bendamustine and rituximab (Pola-BR) has demonstrated promising efficacy and safety as salvage therapy for R/R DLBCL. This systematic review protocol aims to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy of Pola-BR for the treatment of R/R DLBCL by synthesizing data from relevant randomized controlled trials.

Methods: This protocol details the eligibility criteria, search strategy, study selection, data extraction, and analysis methods for the systematic review. Randomized controlled trials comparing Pola-BR with other interventions for R/R DLBCL will be included. The primary endpoint is overall survival, with secondary endpoints being progression-free survival and incidence of adverse events. A comprehensive search will be conducted across databases such as Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE, ProQuest, EU Clinical Trials Register, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov from the January 2000 to April 2024. To assess the potential risk of bias, the Cochrane Risk of Bias 1 tool will be used. Data synthesis will utilize fixed-effect or random-effects models, and subgroup and meta-regression analyses will examine heterogeneity. Additionally, publication bias and sensitivity analyses will be performed, and the GRADE approach will be applied to assess the certainty of the evidence.

Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol provides a rigorous framework for evaluating the efficacy of Pola-BR in the treatment of R/R DLBCL. The results will inform clinical decision-making and guideline development, addressing the unmet need for effective and tolerable treatments for this challenging patient population. Potential limitations and biases will be acknowledged, and future research directions will be discussed.

References
1.
Minozzi S, Cinquini M, Gianola S, Gonzalez-Lorenzo M, Banzi R . The revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) showed low interrater reliability and challenges in its application. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020; 126:37-44. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.06.015. View

2.
Duval S, Tweedie R . Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics. 2000; 56(2):455-63. DOI: 10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x. View

3.
Myung S . How to review and assess a systematic review and meta-analysis article: a methodological study (secondary publication). J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2023; 20:24. PMC: 10449599. DOI: 10.3352/jeehp.2023.20.24. View

4.
Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C . Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997; 315(7109):629-34. PMC: 2127453. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629. View

5.
Li Y, Hwang W, Maude S, Teachey D, Frey N, Myers R . Statistical Considerations for Analyses of Time-To-Event Endpoints in Oncology Clinical Trials: Illustrations with CAR-T Immunotherapy Studies. Clin Cancer Res. 2022; 28(18):3940-3949. PMC: 9481718. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-22-0560. View