SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of first-line therapies for peripheral T-cell lymphoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of first-line therapies for peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) via network meta-analysis. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating first-line treatments in untreated PTCL patients (up to March 1, 2025). Two investigators independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed bias risk. Network meta-analysis was performed using R (v4.3.0). Results: Seven RCTs (1,334 patients) were included, evaluating CHOP, VIP-rABVD, GEM-P, A+CHP, GDPT, Ro-CHOP, and ICED. No significant differences were found in overall or progression-free survival. However, A+CHP (OR = 1.90, 95%CI:1.20-3.10) and GDPT (OR = 2.00, 95%CI:1.00-3.80) showed higher objective response rates versus CHOP. A+CHP (OR = 1.76, 95%CI:1.09-2.88) and Ro-CHOP (OR = 1.40, 95%CI:1.00-1.80) achieved better disease control. VIP-rABVD had the highest thrombocytopenia risk (OR = 50.0, 95%CI:14.29-100), while ICED showed increased anemia risk (OR = 9.20, 95%CI:2.80-44.0). Subgroup analyses revealed no significant PFS differences in AITL/PTCL-NOS. Conclusion: A+CHP shows superior efficacy with acceptable toxicity, while GDPT improves responses but increases myelosuppression risk. Ro-CHOP enhances disease control but with limited remission depth and higher toxicity. Subtype analyses suggest potential PFS benefits for Ro-CHOP in AITL. For PTCL of unspecified type (PTCL-NOS), there is little difference in efficacy among the various treatment regimens.A+CHP and GDPT offer optimal benefit-risk profiles.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.