2025+EHA临床实践指南：大B细胞淋巴瘤的诊断、治疗和随访

Abstract

Large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) accounts for about one-third of adult lymphoma cases. Diagnosis requires specialized hemato-pathology laboratories, with immunophenotypic analysis essential for confirming B-cell lineage and identifying variants. MYC and BCL2 rearrangements indicate a poor prognosis. Staging and prognosis rely on positron emission tomography computed to-mography(PET-CT). The International Prognostic Index(IPI) aids risk stratification.PET-CT is critical for assessing treatment response and guiding strategies. First-line management for LBCL can be informed by interim PET to assess chemosensitivity,with rituximab,cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and predonine(Pola-R-CHP) for advanced stages depending on IPI scores. Primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL) management favors R-CHOP given every 14 days (R-CHOP14) or dose-adjusted etoposide, doxor-ubicin, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, predonnis, and rituximab(DA-EPCH-R) without radiotherapy in complete responders.Elderly patients, unfit or not(≥80 years or<80 with poor fitness), need geriatric assessment to guide therapy, often R-miniCHOP or non-anthracycline regimens. Frail patients should have adapted treatments. Prephase corticosteroids improve performance status, and supportive treatment should be optimized. The value of central nervous system (CNS) prophylaxis remains uncertain.CNS-IPI scores and specific anatomical sites help identify high-risk patients; magnetic resonance imaging(MRI) and colony-stimulating factor(CSF) analysis are recommended. Approximately 30%-40% of patients with LBCL experience relapsed or refractory disease after 1L treatment. Treatment strategies vary based on the timing of relapse(<1 year or≥1 year). For those refractory or relapsing within<1 year and fit for therapy, chimeric antigen receptor T(CART) are the gold standard in 2L.CART in CART-naive patients and bispecific antibodies appear to be the best approach in 3L. Follow-up includes clinical examination for 2 years and management for long-term side effects, such as cardiotoxicity, osteoporosis, immune dysfunction, neurocognitive impairment, endocrine dysfunction, fatigue, neuropathy, and mental distress.

2 of 19

METHODOLOGY

These guidelines aim to provide evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis, treatment, follow-up, and supportive care of patients with large B-cell lymphoma(LBCL) in Europe. They are intended for healthcare professionals. A multidisciplinary panel of experts was formed, including hematologists, pathologists,biologists,radiotherapists, nuclear medicine physicians, and patient representatives. The team ensured geographic and professional diversity to reflect variations in healthcare systems across Europe.Roles were assigned for drafting, evidence review, and editorial oversight.

A systematic review of the literature was conducted using PubMed. The review prioritized high-quality evidence. Evidence was graded using the GRADE framework to assess the strength and quality of recommendations(see Appendix Table A1). Draft re-commendations were developed based on evidence and circulated among the panel for feedback. Discrepancies were resolved through a series of virtual meetings and consensus discussions. These guidelines emphasize patient-centered care, integrating shared decision-making,patient-reported outcomes, and psychosocial support to enhance experiences and align care with patient needs. These guidelines will be updated every 2 years and treatment algorithms annually on the EHA website.

# INCIDENCE AND EPIDEMIOLOGY

LBCL, including mostly diffuse large B-cell lymphoma(DLBCL),accounts for approximately one-third of all lymphomas in adults.1 In Europe, the incidence rate for LBCL is 28,000/year,2 with more males being affected compared to females.1 The incidence increases with age. In the vast majority of patients, the etiology of LBCL remains unclear. Various risk factors for the development of LBCL such as immunodeficiency, B-cell activating autoimmune diseases, virus infections, or a family history of lymphoma have been identified3(Table 1).

# DIAGNOSIS, PATHOLOGY, AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY

LBCLs, including DLBCLs not otherwise specified(NOS), should be diagnosed in a reference hematopathology laboratory with expertise in the diagnostic work-up of lymphoma specimens(Table 2). In particular, the full spectrum of immunohistochemical markers and molecular techniques should be available to render a lymphoma diagnosis according to the current World Health Organization(WHO)6/International Consensus Classification(ICC).

Essential diagnostic criteria comprise a characteristic morphology and infiltration pattern together with evidence of a mature B-cell phenotype by immunohistochemistry(IHC) or flow cytometry

(or both). These criteria a support the diagnosis of LBCL, its various subtypes, and, eventually, transformation from indolent lymphomas.The IHC panel should encompass markers that allow distinction from alternative diagnoses, such as Burkitt lymphoma, plasmablastic lym-phoma, blastic/pleomorphic mantle cell lymphoma, and rare variants of Hodgkin lymphoma. In addition, more specific subgroups of LBCLs should be identified(e.g., EBV-positive DLBCL, primary mediastinal LBCL). A statement on the cell of origin(COO) classification in the diagnostic report(e.g., by an immunohistochemical classifier) is considered desirable by the WHO and ICC classifications. However,IHC misclassifies up to 30% of patients. Therefore, restricting access to potentially active therapeutic options based solely on IHC is not recommended.

It is highly recommended to use genetic/molecular testing to separate DLBCL, NOS from the diagnostic category of LBCL with MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements, by fluorescence in situ hybridization(FISH) for the MYC locus, and, if positive, by subsequent FISH testing for BCL2 and BCL6 rearrangements. Both recently revised classifications, describe HGBCL with MYC and BCL2 rearrangements(with or without BCL6 rearrangement) as an aggressive lymphoma of GCB origin with distinct biology from other LBCLs. Evidence supporting a distinct biology in patients with MYC and BCL6 rearrangements is currently limited. In the WHO-HAEM5,5 dual MYC and BCL6 rearrangements are now classified either as a subtype of DLBCL, NOS or HGBCL, NOS according to their cytomor-phological features. The revised ICC4 has retained HGBCL-DH-BCL6 as a provisional entity justifying further studies. MYC translocation to an immunoglobulin partner is most strongly associated with inferior overall survival(OSG).7,8 Other predictors of poor outcome such as TP53 mutations and“molecular high-grade” gene expression signature are not yet routinely used in clinical prognostication.It is noteworthy that more specific subtypes, for example, LBCLs with IRF4 rearrangement of high-grade B-cell lymphoma with 11q aberration, reflect the heterogeneity of LBCL, but currently have no therapeutic implications.

The two molecular subtypes including activated B-cell-like DLBCL(ABC DLBCL) and germinal center B-cell-like DLBCL(GCB DLBCL)10 associated with different COO may be determined by IHC at diagnosis, even if various initial trials that investigated the addi-tion of specific drugs to front-line rituximab, cyclophosphamide,doxorubicin, vincristine,and prednisone(R-CHOP) therapy failed to show a positive signal,11 contrary to more recent approaches 12,13 or at the time of relapse.14 Recently, novel molecular subtypes were identified using next-generation sequencing approaches.15,16 However, the identification of these subtypes is not applicable at this stage in clinical routine and their prognostic and potentially predictive value needs to be established in prospective clinical trials.These double expressors are associated with poor outcomes in patients treated with R-CHOP17; however, no specific treatment is currently recommended, as they do not represent distinct biological subgroups but rather the convergent result of diverse underlying pathways.4

HemaSphere

3 of 19

TABLE 1 Reported risk factors for large B-cell lymphoma(adapted from ref. 3).

|Risk factors|Odds ratio (OR)|95% CI| |---|---|---| |Inherited immunodeficiency syndrome, HIV.AIDS, organ transplant recipients|>2|NA| |B-cell activating autoimmune diseases(e.g., Sjogren syndrome, systemic lupus erythematosus, and rheumatoid arthritis)|2.36|1.80-3.09| |Viral infections(e.g., HIV,KSHV/HHV8, HCV,EBV, B|2.02|1.47-2.76| |Family history of non-Hodgkin lymphoma|1.95|1.54-2.47| |Obesity: Young adult BMI (30+ vs. 18.5-22.4 kg/m2)|1.58|1.12-2.23| |Recreational sun exposure (inverse association)|0.78|0.69-0.89| |Any atopic disorder (inverse association)|0.82|0.76-0.89| |Higher socioeconomic status (inverse association)|0.86|0.79-0.94| |Multiple environmental exposures, for example, trichloroethylene, benzene, and pesticides and herbicides, glyphosphate, field crop/vegetable farm worker (women)|1.78|1.22-2.60| |Hairdresser (women)|1.65|1.12-2.41| |Seamstress/embdererer (women)|1.49|1.13-1.97| |Low adult BMI(<18.5 vs.18.5-22.4 kg/m2, women)|0.46|0.29-0.74| |Hormone replacement therapy (50 years, women)|0.68|0.52-0.88| |Oral contraceptive use before 1970(women)|0.78|0.62-1.00| |Material handling equipment operator (men)|1.58|1.02-2.44| |Lifetime alcohol consumption (>400 kg vs. nondrinker, men)|0.57|0.44-0.75|

Abbreviations:BMI,body mass index;EBV,Epstein-Barr virus;HBV,Hepatitis B virus;HCV,Hepatitis C virus;KSHV/HHB8,Baposi's Carsa-associated Herpes Virus/Human Herpes virus type 8; NA, not applicable.

STAGING, PROGNOSTIC/RISK ASSESSMENT

Positron emission tomography computed tomography(PET-CT)18,19 is the primary imaging method for staging, efficiently identifying extranodal disease-impacting prognosis,20 except in leptomeningal involvement or parenchymal brain, where magnetic resonance imaging(MRI) is the gold standard. For patients at high risk of CNS relapse, baseline MRI and CSF analysis are recommended to exclude occult secondary CNS involvement.

PET-CT surpasses bone marrow biopsy in detecting bone marrow involvement with LCBL and is highly specific. ${}^{21,22}$ The presence of non-fluorodeoxyglucose(FDG)-avid a bone marrow disease does not confer a worse prognosis.23-26 Bone marrow biopsy may be considered for selected patients in whom a coexisting hematological condition is suspected (e.g., low-grade lymphoma or myelodysplasmal), and where this would inform clinical management, but is otherwise unnecessary.

Multiple prognostic indexes derived from the International Prognostic Index(IPI) have been reported.27-29 However, IP1 is mandatory and CNS-IPI is strongly recommended before treatment30,31(Table 3). PET-CT provides a precise evaluation of baseline tumor burden assessed by the standardized uptake value(SUV) 4.0 threshold-based metabolic tumor volume(MTV), a highly promising prognostic biomarker in LBC,32-35 as well as CTDNA.36 New indexes including MTV have been developed that better discriminate patients over IP1.37-40 Quantitative measures such as maximum lesion distance(Dmax) and distance between the largest and another lesion(Dmaxbulk)41,42 offer potential for enhanced risk stratification.

ADDITIONAL BASELINE INVESTIGATIONS AND MANAGEMENT

Enhancing all aspects of supportive care is crucial to minimize morbidity, especially in elderly or frail patients(Table 4).Patients often present with complex needs, and involvement of key members of the wider multidisciplinary team(MDT)(e.g.,lymphoma clinical nurse specialists, pharmacists, cardiorespiratory specialists, and healthcare of older people liaison teams) can prove invaluable.

The risk of osteoporotic bone fractures is significant in the LBCL patient population.43 A predisposing history(osteoporosis, osteope-nia, prior fracture, and rheumatoid arthritis), bone involvement with lymphoma, and prephase corticosteroid therapy are independent risk factors. Baseline osteoporosis risk should be considered(e.g., the FRAX score). Patients receiving steroid therapy have been shown to benefit from vitamin D treatment in other contexts, so this may be considered.44.45

Simultaneous administration of calcium channel blocking agents could adversely impact the antitumor efficacy of anti-CD20-based monoclonal antibodies.46 Alternative drugs could be considered in these patients.

Patients should receive clear, accessible information on their diagnosis and treatment options, enabling them to express their goals and preferences regarding quality of life and functional status, and to actively participate in their care. Psychosocial distress screening should be performed at diagnosis using a validated tool(e.g., NCCN Distress Thermometer, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale).Identifying distress early allows timely referrals to psychological and supportive care services.

RESPONSE ASSESSMENT

PET imaging, per Lugano criteria,18,19,47 is preferred for response assessment(Table 5), with the timing varying depending on the specific LCBL entity(Figure 1). End-of-treatment(EoT) PET predicts outcomes,48 with scores of 1-3 on the five-point scale(Deauville Score[DS]) indicating complete metabolic response(CMR). Although EoT PET scans show high negative predictive value(NPV> 90%), the suboptimal positive predictive value(~60%)warrants biopsy or follow-up PET, in case of lesions with residual positive uptake.

Interim PET scans (iPET2, iPET4) after 2-4 R-CHOP cycles may be helpful to establish chemosensitivity early, as it is associated with a strong NPV,49 using the △SUVmax reduction criteria. Reports suggest that 94%-100% of patients achieving CMR at iPET maintain CMR at EoT PET, although MVC-positive DLBCL may show aberrant PET responses.50

Emerging evidence supports cell-free DNA as a promising biomarker for tumor burden and therapy response assessment.

MANAGEMENT OF 1L LBCL

Management of 1L LBCL is based on several prognostic factors, in-cluding the extent of disease dissemination. Localized or early-stage LBCL (Stage I/II) accounts for approximately 30% of newly diagnosed cases.51 In localized disease, low-risk or high-risk disease has been conventionally informed by age(<60 years old,≥60 years old) and the presence of adverse clinical factors (high lactate dehydrogenase [LDH] and poor performance status [PS]).

Bulky disease is widely defined as a tumor diameter of≥7.5 cm of the largest lesion.52 Recent data offer an alternative definition of

4 of 19

TABLE 2 Baseline investigations for LBCL diagnosis, staging, and prognostic-risk assessment.(continued on next page)

|Investigation/procedure|Recommendation level|Notes| |---|---|---| |Biopsy||| |Surgical excision biopsy|[I,B]|Preferred method| |Needle-core or endoscopic biopsy|[II,B]|Acceptable if surgery is impractical or high risk| |Diagnosis by reference hematopathology lab|[I,A]|Access to full phenotypic and molecular investigations required| |Expression of CD20, BCL6, CD10, IRF4/MUM1 MYC, BCL2, Ki67, and CD5 Expression of CD19 only at relapse|NA|Recommended4,5| |Double expressor[MYC/BCL2]|NA|Recommended4,5| |Molecular testing:|NA|Recommended4,5| |FISH for MYC translocation and lg partner FISH for BCL2 and BCL6 translocations if MYC rearranged|NA|Recommended4,5| |EBER-1|NA|Optional based on the morphology or any relevant clinical situations| |CD19 only at time of relapse|NA|Relevant for treatment choices| |Blood tests||| |Serum lactate dehydrogenase(LDH)|[I,A]|Baseline measurement| |Albumin|[I,A]|| |Quantitative immunoglobulins|[I,A]|| |Hepatitis B,C,HIV serology|[I,A]|Full serology panel| |Imaging and staging||| |Baseline PET-CT|[I,A]|Preferred for staging| |Contrast-enhanced CT(neck, chest, abdomen)|[II,B]|If PET-CT is not feasible| |Staging bone marrow biopsy|[II,B]|Only where discordant or alternative bone marrow pathology would influence clinical management| |Central nervous system (CNS) assessment||| |MRI (brain/spine if indicated)|[I,B]|In high risk of CNS relapse| |CSF assessment(cytology and immunophenotyping)|[I,B]|In high risk of CNS relapse| |Cardiac assessment||| |Electrocardiogram(ECG), and blood pressure measurement|[I,B]|Baseline for all patients before anthracyclines, intensive chemotherapy with autograft, CAR-T cells, or bispecific antibodies| |Echocardiogram(older patients or risk factors)|[II,B]|Assess left ventricular function| |Performance and prognostic scores||| |ECOG performance status|[I,A]|Document at baseline| |International Prognostic Index(IPI)|[I,A]|Document at baseline| |Central nervous system-International Prognostic Index(CNS- IPI) score|[I,A]|Document at baseline| |Metabolic tumor volume|NA|Recommended| |International Metabolic Prognostic Index(IMPI)|NA|Recommended| |Molecular and genetic testing||| |Fluorescence in situ hybridization(FISH) for MYC|[I,B]|Baseline genetic profiling| |FISH for BCL2 and BCL6(if MYC+ identified)|[I,B]|| |Cell of origin(COO) classification|[II,B]|Determined by IHC| |Multidisciplinary team(MDT) discussion||| |Review diagnosis and treatment plan at MDT|[I,A]|| |Patient communication and support||| |Fatigue assessment|NA|Baseline|

HemaSphere

5 of 19

TABLE 2 (Continued)

|Investigation/procedure|Recommendation level|Notes| |---|---|---| |Mental distress assessment|NA|Baseline| |Discuss diagnosis with patient/family|[I,B]|Provide clear, accessible, and jargon-free information on the diagnosis and treatment options, benefits and risks, including the impact on quality of life, and check if patients understand the information provided. Patient preferences for their initial therapy should be discussed.|

Abbreviations:CSF, colony-stimulating factor; IHC, immunohistochemistry; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; NA, not applicable.

TABLE 3 International Prognostic Index (IPI) and central nervous system (CNS)-IPI.

|IPI|| |---|---| |Factor|| |Age|≤60 or >60| |Serum LDH|≤1x normal or >1| |Performance status|0 or 1 versus 2-4| |Stage|I or ll versus 11 or IV| |Extranodal involvement|≤1 site versus ≥2 sites| |IPI categories|All patients| |Low|0 or 1| |Low intermediate|2| |High intermediate|3| |Age-adjusted IPI categories|4 or 5| |Low|0| |Low intermediate|1| |High intermediate|2| |High intermediate|3| |CNS-IPI|| |Factor|| |Age|≤60 or >60| |Serum LDH|≤1x normal or >1| |Performance status|0 or 1 versus 2-4| |Stage|I or ll versus III or IV| |Extranodal involvement|≤1 site versus ≥2 sites| |Renal and/or adrenal involvement|Yes or no| |IPI categories|All patients| |Low|0 or 1| |intermediate|2 or 3| |High|4 or 5 or 6|

Abbreviation: LDH, lactate dehydrogenase.

bulk, based on metabolic volume(total metabolic tumor volume[TMTV]>220mL or, as included in the International Metabolic Prognostic Index(IMPI), as a continuous variable.34.35

Notwithstanding the clinical and biological heterogeneity of LBCL, most patients are currently treated with the same approaches, including patients with transformation from previously untreated(or unknown) indolent lymphomas. ${}^{53}$

1L LBCL, Stage I/II, 0 risk factor, <80 years

These patients are PI=0 if<60 years old or aalPI=0 if 60-80 years old.

● For patients with non-bulky disease

- In patients ≤60 years, abbreviated chemoimmunotherapy, with four cycles of R-CHOP, is highly effective. In the FLYER trial,two additional rituximab doses were administered.54 The 3-year progression-free survival(PFS) was 96%.54 With this approach, response assessment was by CT imaging.

- For patients vs.80 years, a PET-adapted approach after two cycles is supported by randomized trial data(e.g., LYSA LNH 09-1B), 55 enabling abbreviated chemoimmunotherapy (R-CHOP for four cycles) for patients with CMR on iPET2. A non-randomized Phase 2 study (S1001) also supports this approach for those with IPET3 CMR. ${}^{56}$

● For patients with bulky disease(≥7.5 cm).R-CHOP for six cycles is a standard approach.

1L LBCL, 1 risk factor (Stage III/IV or Stage I/II with poor PS or high LDH), <80 years

These patients are IPI = 1 if < 60 years old or aalPI = 1 if 60 - 80 years old.They present with either a disseminated disease (Stage III/IV) without any other risk factor, or with a localized disease (Stage I/II) with 1 risk factor, either poor performance status (PS) or elevated LDH level.

- R-CHOP for six cycles is the standard approach [I, A] ${}^{57}$ (Table 6).

- In early-stage LBCL, radiotherapy(RT) is generally not indicated if six cycles of full dose intensity are delivered and CMR is achieved [I,A].58.59 Radiotherapy consolidation(involved site radiotherapy[ISRT] 30 Gy in 15 fractions) after immunochemotherapy is gen-erally not indicated if full dose intensity is delivered because it offers limited survival benefit [III,C].58.59

- In early-stage LBCL, there is no evidence to support adopting a different approach per se for patients with biological risk factors such as MYC rearrangement(with/without BCL2 rearrangements)[III, B]. ${}^{60-62}$

1L LBCL, Stage III/IV,≥2 risk factors, <80 years

These patients present with an IPI=2-5.

- Polatuzumab vednotinot ruximab,cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin,and prednisone(Pola-R-CHP) demonstrated a $6.5\%$ improvement in 2-year PFS compared to R-CHOP in the POLARIX trial, making it the standard for IPI 2-5 disease in many regions [I, B]. ${}^{12}$ Pola-RCHP for six cycles is preferred, although R-CHOP is an acceptable

6 of 19

TABLE 4 Additional investigations prior to treatment.

|Investigation/procedure|Recommendation level|Notes| |---|---|---| |Consider referral to relevant specialties|[I, B]|(Cardiology, health care of older people, endocrinology) for medical optimization prior to and/or during treatment| |Osteoporosis||Consider osteoporosis risk in all patients FRAX score| |Vitamin D supplementation||According to risk profile| |Calcium channel blocking agents|[III, A]|Alternative drugs could be considered in patients treated with the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody| |Primary G-CSF prophylaxis|[I, A]|To all patients in curative intent, particularly patients older than 60 when treated with R-CHOP and more intensive immunochemotherapy| |Primary prophylaxis against HSV/VZV|[II, B]|In selected patients| |Primary prophylaxis against Pneumocystis jirovecii|[II, B]|In selected patients| |Vaccination against influenza, COVID, pneumococcus, herpes zoster|[II, B]|Before treatment when feasible|

Abbreviations: G-CSF, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor; HSV/VZV, Herpes Simplex virus/Varicella Zoster virus; R-CHOP, rituximab,cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin,vincristine, and prednisone.

TABLE 5 Response assessment.

|Assessment/procedure|Recommendation level|Notes| |---|---|---| |Imaging||| |FDG-PET(end of treatment[EOT])|[Ⅲ,A]|Use the Lugano criteria for response assessment| |Deauville Score(DS 1-3= complete metabolic response, CMR)|[Ⅲ,A]|CMR indicates favorable outcome| |Incomplete metabolic response(DS 4-5)|[Ⅲ, A]|Biopsy or repeat PET-CT at 8-12 weeks| |Omit EOT PET(optional)|[Ⅲ, B]|For patients with MYC-positive lymphomas achieving early CMR, caution is warranted as PET imaging may yield aberrant or misleading results| |PET-CT(Interim, iPET2 or iPET4)|[Ⅲ, A]|Selects patients for different therapy| |△SUVmax>70% at iPET4|[Ⅲ, A]|Indicates favorable response| |DS 5(residual uptake at least 2 times the liver SUVmax) at iPET4|[Ⅲ, A]|Consider for salvage therapy after biopsy| |Additional assessments||| |Biopsy(residual uptake on PET)|[Ⅲ, A]|Confirms residual disease or false-positive| |MRI(CNS involvement suspected)|[Ⅲ, B]|Include spine imaging if indicated| |Biomarkers||| |Cell-free DNA(cfDNA)|[IV, A]|Investigational; prognostic but not clinical standard| |Multidisciplinary team(MDT) review||| |Discuss response at MDT|[Ⅲ, A]|Evaluate results and plan subsequent management|

Abbreviations:CNS,central nervous system;FDG-PET,fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography;MRI,magnetic resonance imaging;PET-CT,positron emission tomography computed tomography; SUV, standardized uptake value.

alternative when Pola-R-CHP is not available. Dose-dense R-CHOP(14 days) is not superior to R-CHOP given every 21 days(R-CHOP21). High-dose chemotherapy(HD-CT) with autologous stem cell transplant(ASCT) shows no survival benefit as 1L therapy. R-CHOP+etoposide every 14 days(R-CHOEP-14) results in a 3-5-year PFS rate of >80% in Phase II trials [II, B]. 65.66 A recent report suggests that Pola-R-CHP is at least as effective as R-CHOEP and potentially less toxic. ${}^{67}$

- In Stage I/II disease and IPI≥2, Pola-R-CHP may be considered, re-cognizing that only 11% of patients with these characteristics were included in POLARIX, limiting interpretation of the early-stage subgroup. ${}^{12}$

● RT in advanced LBCL is reserved for patients with PET-positive,single-site residual disease post-systemic therapy. PET-negative patients do not routinely require RT [II, B].68

Additional recommendations

Infection is a common cause of morbidity and mortality in the context of LBCL therapy. ${}^{69,70}$ Primary nanocylate colony-stimulating factor(G-CSF)phropylaxis and antimicrobial prophylaxis should be considered for all patients receiving chemo-immunotherapy with curative intent, particularly patients older than 60 when treated with R-CHOP and more intensive immunochemotherapy regimens. ${}^{71}$

HemaSphere

7 of 19

![1L LBCLN\nO risk factor\n1 risk factor\n\n22 risk factor\nR:Chop 11V\n\nIF\ng\n3\nStage III,IV\n3\nStage III,IV\n4\n2\n2\n3\n2\n4\n3\n4\n5\n6\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\n1\nR:CHOP21\times[6,I,A]\n1k factor\n1\n2\n2\n2\n3\n4\n5\n6\n1\n4\n1\n1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 \n](2/aj0YEe4oUhYkBdfpda0fYP/figure341cedb7a4834856bd50bf717a86fe3e_0_2.png) FIGURE 1 Algorithm 1 L large B-cell lymphoma(LBCL) treatment. CNS, central nervous system; CT, computed tomography; DA-EPOCH-PH, dose-adjusted etoposide, doxorubicin, vincristicphamide, predomine, rituximab, DS, Deauville Score; EOT, end of treatment; FDG-PET, fluoroodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography; HD-MTX, high-dose intravenous methotrexate; PET, interim PET at 2.3 or 4 cycles depending on local practice; IT-MTX, intrathecal methotrexate; LDL, hydrate dehydrogenase; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; PET, positron emission tomography; PMBCL, primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma;Pola-R-CHOP, poluximab vodinex trutrimacte, doxorubicin, and predoniske; PS, performance status; R-ACVBP, rituximab, doxorubicin,cyclophosphamide, vineside, blemycneum, and prednisone; R-CEOP, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, etoposide substituted for doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone; R-CHOP-14, R-CHOP+ etoposide every 14 days; R-CHOP+ etoposide every 21 days; R-CDOOX-M-R/IVAC, rituximab doxorubicin vincristine cyclophosphamide, IV methotrexate/etoposide,ifosfamide(with MESNA), cytarabine Intrathecal cytarabine intrathecal methotrexate; R-COMP, RCHOP with non-PEGylated liposomal doxorubicin; R-GCVP,rituximab, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, gucmitine, gucmitine, and prednisone; R-GEMOX, rituximab, gencmitineab-oxaliplatin; RT, radiotherapy; SUV standardized uptake value.

Summary of recommendations 1L LBCL

General considerations.

- Bulky disease: defined as a maximal tumor diameter of≥7.5 cm ${}^{52}$ ;a more accurate definition is based on metabolic volume when TMTV> 220 mL or included in the IMPI as a continuous variable. ${}^{39,40}$

- In early stage(Stage I/II), low-risk or high-risk disease is defined based on age(≤60 years old, >60 years old) and the presence of adverse clinical factors (high LDH and poor PS).

- RT(ISRT 30 Gy in 15 fractions): In the early stage, RT is generally not indicated for chemosensitive disease if full dose intensity is delivered because it offers limited survival benefit 58,59[III, C]. In the advanced stage, consolidation in the case of an FDG-positive residual lesion in a single site after systemic therapy may be proposed[II, B].

- Assessment by FDG-PET at EOT is mandatory.

1L LBCL, Stage I/II, 0 risk factor, <80 years.

● Offer R-CHOP21x4 cycles(IB).

o Bulky: consider R-CHOP21 x 6 cycles (IA).

。Non-bulky and<60 years:

Response assessment:

*- Interim PET evaluation:

•Not required for non-bulky(<7.5 cm) and ≤60.

• Recommended for bulky(≥7.5 cm) or 60-80.

•FDG-PET at EOT for all patients.

1L LBCL, 1 risk factor (Stage III/IV or Stage I/II with poor PS or high LDH),<80 years.

● offer R-CHOP21x6 cycles(1A).

Response assessment:

<BeginOfPara>• Interim PET evaluation: recommended.

*FDG-PET at EOT for all patients.

1L LBCL, Stage III/IV,≥2 risk factors,<80 years.

● offer Pola-R-CHPx6 cycles [I, B]; consider R-CHOP21 as an alternative [I, A].

Response assessment:

<Interim PET evaluation: recommended.

*FDG-PET at EOT for all patients.

8 of 19

Detailed acronyms of chemotherapies.

|Acronyms|Drugs| |---|---| |R-CHOP|Rituximab,cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone| |R-CHOP21|R-CHOP given every 21 days| |R-CHOP14|R-CHOP given every 14 days| |Pola-R-CHP|Polatuzumab vedotin rituximab,cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone| |DA-YPCH-R|Etoposide, doxorubicin, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, prednisone, and rituximab Dose-adjusted based on the neutrophil nadir, which is checked twice weekly| |R-CHOEP-14|R-CHOP+etoposide every 14 days| |R-CDOX-M/R-IVAC|Rituximab doxorubicin vincristine cyclophosphamide, IV methotrexate/etoposide, ifosfamide(with MESNA), cytarabine Intrathecar�butirathmetorexate| |R-ACVBP plus sequential consolidation|Rituximab, doxorubicin,cyclophosphamide, vindesine, bleomycine, and prednisone, followed with consolidation with 2 cycles of HD. MTX(3g/m2), 4 cycles of rituximab,etoposide, and ifosfamide, followed by 2 cycles of carbyarabine subcutaneously for 4 days| |R-CEOP|Rituximab,cyclophosphamide, and etoposide substituted for doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone| |R-GCVP|Rituximab,cyclophosphamide, vincristine, gemcitabine, and prednisone| |R-COMP|RCHOP with non-PEGylated liposomal doxorubicin| |R-GEMOX|Rituximab, gemcitabine-oxalipatin| |R-DHAP/X/ or C|Rituximab,dexamethasone, cartyabine, and cisplatin or oxaliplatin or carbolinat| |R-ICE|Rituximab, ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide| |R-GDP|Rituximab,gemcitabine,dexamethasone,and cisplatin| |R-ESHAP|Rituximab,etoposide, cisplatin, and methylprednisolone| |BEAM|Carmustine/BCNU,etoposide,tyarabine,and melphalan| |BEAC|Carmustine/BCNU,etoposide,tyarabine,and cyclophosphamide| |BeEAM|Bendamustine/etoposide+cytarabine+melphalan| |FEAM|Fotomustine+etoposide+cytarabine+melphalan| |Pola-BR|Polatuzumab vedotin, bendamustin,and rituximab|

LBCLs requiring special consideration

Patients at high risk for CNS relapse

Relapse of LCBL in the CNS is rare but often fatal.72 Prophylaxis methods include IT injections and high-dose intravenous metho-trexate(HD-MTX), although their efficacy is debated, 73,74 and they yield significant toxicity, especially in elderly patients.

Risk factors for CNS relapse

<BeginOfPara>。Two or more than two initial extra-nodal sites. ${}^{75}$

.Involvement of specific extranodal sites, named immune privileged sites: testis, breast, epidural space, orbit, kidney, and adrenal gland.76

High-grade histology-particularly in lymphomas expressing the dark-zone gene expression signature (DZsig), originally derived from HGBCL-DH-BCL2-as well as MYC rearrangements and genetic subtypes involving MYD88/CD79 mutations, have been suggested to be associated with an increased risk of CNS relapse." However, the strength of these associations remains uncertain, and further valida-tion is needed before these features can be considered reliable risk factors in clinical practice.

Initial screening.

。Routine screening in high-risk patients should include MRI and CSF analysis via cytology and flow cytometry-which demonstrated a greater sensitivity than cytology- or cell-free tumor DNA(ctDNA),the latter being a promising method not yet widely available nor standardized.12

。Perform these examinations as early as feasible after diagnosis[III,A], ideally before Cycle 1.

CNS prophylaxis strategies

IT methotrexate has limitations in penetration and efficacy and is not recommended. HD-MTX with at least 3g/m2x2 cycles may be considered for patients with high CNS relapse risk who have obtained a CMR after R-CHOP or Pola-R-CHP [III, B]. Intensive regimens such as R-CHOP, rituximab doxorubicin vincristine cyclophosphamide,IV methotrexate/etoposide, ifosfamide(with MESNA), cytarabine-intrathecal cytarabine intrathecal methotrexate(R-CODOX-M/R-IVAC), or rituximab, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vinesdein,bleomycin, and prednisone(R-ACVBP), followed by sequential consolidation-which incorporate HD-MTX78-may be considered in selected young and fit patients under 60 years of age[III, B]. How-ever, the supporting evidence remains limited and is primarily based on retrospective analyses.

Recommendations

● CNS-PII should be assessed for all patients with LBCL [III, A].

● Perform MRI and CSF analysis for high-risk patients as early as feasible after diagnosis[III, A].

High-grade B-cell lymphoma with translocations of MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6(double- and triple-hit lymphomas, DH/TH)

Patients with MYC, BCL2, and/or BCL6 translocations and dis-seminated disease experience poorer outcomes with R-CHOP21.R-CHOP21 should be considered only for unfit patients for whom intensive regimens are not feasible. CNS prophylaxis may be warranted only in selected patients. For eligible patients,intensive regimens like dose-adjusted etoposide, doxorubicin,vincristine,cyclophosphamide,prednisone, rituximab(DA-EPOCH-R),R-CHOEP-14, R-CODOX-M/R-IVAC, and R-ACVBP are re-commended[III,B]. ${}^{79}$

For these groups, Pola-R-CHP does not appear to be superior to R-CHOP. ${}^{12}$

HD-CT with ASTC as consolidation after first-line treatment is not recommended [IV,B].

HemaSphere

9 of 19

Recommendations

● High grade(double/triple hit): Consider R-CHOEP14 or DA-EPOCH-P,R-CODOX-M/R-IVAC,and R-ACVBP for selected patients[III,B].Pola-RCHP seems not superior to R-CHOP in D/TH LBCL. Offer R-CHOP21 only in unfit patients.

Primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma

Primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma(PMBCL) primarily affects young females and is characterized by a bulky anterior mediastinal mass, rapid progression, and a distinct gene expression profile.81

● Chemoimmunotherapy regimens

Long-term outcomes with regimens in such as R-CHOP14 or more intensified regimens including R-M/VACOP-B, R-ACVBP,and DA-EPOCH-M-R for patients<80 are generally favorable and show comparable complete response(CR) rates and long-term outcomes.82-85 R-CHOP21 is associated with inferior results and should be avoided in PMBCL[II, A].82,84-87

● RT

In the IELSG37 Phase 3 trial,85 545 patients were treated with various regimens, including R-CHOP21 and DA-EPOCH-R. Among patients achieving CMR(DS 1-3, 50% of patients), no significant dif-ference was observed between the observation and RT arms in terms of the 30-month PFS(96.2% vs. 98.5%) or the 5-year OS(99%).

Mediastinal RT can be omitted for patients achieving CMR,improving long-term safety[II, B].

● Management of DS4/DS5 cases

For patients with DS4 at the end of chemoinmotherapy,biopsy is encouraged. A close follow-up with FDG-PET may be proposed, namely, after DA-EPOCH-R. These patients may also benefit from RT, with a 5-year PFS of 95.8% in the IELSG37 trial[III, C].85 RT may be considered in the context of long-term complications and potential excellent results of novel therapies in Line 2, such as CAR-T therapy and checkpoint inhibitors, appearing more appropriate and effective for these patients with supporting data already reported[III, C].88

DS5 cases have a worse prognosis, underscoring the need for salvage therapies of PMBCL≤80

Recommendation for PMBCL≤80

● Treat with R-CHOP14 or more intensified regimens including R-M/VACOP-B, R-ACVBP, and DA-EPOCH-R for patients<80[I, A].

● Omit mediastinal RT in patients achieving CMR after chemoimmun-botherapy[I, A].

● Avoid R-CHOP21 in favor of regimens with better outcomes[II, A].

● For DS4 cases, biopsy should be encouraged; consider follow-up with FDG-PET, namely, after DA-EPOCH-R. Consider RT evalu-ating long-term complications[II, B].

● DS5 cases require salvage treatment[I, B]. Consider biopsy in selected doubtful cases.

Primary testicular LBCL

Primary testicular LBCL(PTL) accounts for less than 2% of non-Hodgkin lymphomas and predominantly involves the ABC-like

subtype. PTL often presents as limited-stage disease, with unilateral testis involvement(Stage I)±para-oartic lymph nodes(Stage II).

without contralateral testis RT,PTL carries a high risk of relapse in the contralateral testis, extranodal sites, and the central nervous system(CNS). ${}^{89,90}$

The IESLG10 Study, including patients<80, showed significant out-come improvement with R-CHOP21(6-8 courses) combined with CNS prophylaxis(four doses of intrathecal[IT] methotrexate) and contralateral testis RT[III, B].91 The study achieved 5-year PFS and OS of 74% and 85%, with no contralateral testis relapses and a 6% CNS relapse rate.

In the more recent IELSG30 study,92 intensified CNS prophylaxis with IT liposomal cytarbine and HD-MTX was implemented; regional lymph node RT was omitted, achieving a 5-year PFS of 88% with no CNS or contralateral testis relapses. Emerging evidence suggests that systemic IV HD-MTX may be more effective than IT chemotherapy for CNS prophylaxis.

Recommendations

● Offer RCHOP 6(cycles)[II, A].

● Consider as strongly recommended contralateral testis RT fol-lowing chemimmunotherapy[I, A].

● Offer CNS prophylaxis [II, A].

● Treat advanced-stage PTL similarly to nodal LBCL, but include prophylactic testis RT and CNS prophylaxis[III, B].

Intravascular LBCL

Intravascular LBCL is a rare LBCL, characterized by neoplastic B cells within the lumen of blood vessels, more commonly affecting older patients and often involving extranodal sites such as the CNS(approximately 30% of patients), lungs, and skin.93 The prognosis is generally poor. Rituximab may be associated with severe infusion-related reactions.94 This may be mitigated during initial induction by delaying rituximab until 2-3 days after the first dose of chemother-apy. Seeking to mitigate the high risk of CNS involvement, an early-phase trial incorporating IT and HD-MTX into an R-CHOP backbone reported a 2-year PFS of 76%.95

Recommendations

● Perform contrast-enhanced MRI of the brain(include the spine if clinically indicated) and baseline CSF assessment(to include cytology and immunophenotyping) as baseline screening for CNS disease(1B).

● Offer six cycles of R-CHOP(1B).

● Consider delaying the first rituximab infusion by≥48h after chemotherapy administration to mitigate against the risk of a severe infusion reaction in Cycle 1(2B).

● Offer CNS prophylaxis(see chapter) for those with no evidence of CNS disease at baseline(1B).

● Offer intensive CNS-directed lymphoma protocols for those with evidence of CNS disease(1B).

Older patients

Older patients are usually defined as individuals aged≥80 years old or unfit patients<80 years old. A thorough pre-therapeutic assessment is essential for elderly patients, considering their overall health, co-morbidities, preferences, and lymphoma characteristics(Table 7).Diagnosis and staging should align with practices for younger pa-tients. Simplified geriatric assessment or other frailty indices are

10 of 19

TABLE 7 Geriatric assessment.

|Category|Assessment tool|Focus| |---|---|---| |Functional status|ECOG performance scale ADL, IADL|Physical independence| |Comorbidities|CIRS-G|Chronic conditions and severity| |Cognitive function|MMSE or MoCA|Memory and executive functioning| |Nutritional status|BMI, albumin|Weight loss and malnutrition risk| |Social support|Geriatric Depression Scale|Mental health and caregiver support| |Polypharmacy|Medication review|Risk of drug interactions|

Abbreviations:ADL,activities of daily living; BMI,body mass index IADL,instrumental activities of daily living; MMSE,mini mental state of examination;MoCA, montreal cognitive assessment.

recommended to evaluate cognitive function, nutritional status, and frailty, distinguishing fit, unfit, and frail patients.96 This helps identify candidates for curative treatments versus those needing attenuated approaches or pallative care. Goals of care discussions with patients and families should include palliative options when appropriate.Optimizing all aspects of supportive care is important to reduce morbidity, particularly for elderly or frail patients. A palliative approach that focuses on quality of life and symptom control may be more suitable for very frail patients.

Two large Phase II trials validate six cycles of R-miniCHOP(doxorubicin 25 mg/m2, cyclophosphamide 400 mg/m2, and vincris-tine 1mg) for patients≥80, achieving curative potential[I, B].97 Prephase corticosteroids with or without vincristine improve PS and mitigate subsequent immunochemotherapy's adverse effects[I, A].98-100

Patients with cardiac dysfunction left ventricular ejection frac-tion< 50% or signs of heart failure necessitate doxorubicin-free regi-men,including rituximab,cyclophosphamide, and etoposide substituted for doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone(R-CEOP)[III, B], rituximab,cyclophosphamide, vincristine, gemcitabine, and prednisone(R-GCVP),or non-PEGylated liposomal doxorubicin(R-COMP), rituximab,gemcitabine-oxaliplinat(R-GEMOX),101-105 appropriate management of the cardiac function including optimization of cardiological treatment(ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers), and echo heart monitoring every two cycles(+troponin and NTproBNP as per cardi-oncology advice).

In case of previous treatment with anthracyclines(e.g., breast cancer,FEC), calculate the anthracycline dose limit(450 mg/m2) and make decisions accordingly.

Osteoporosis risk is significant in older patients receiving R-CHOP-like therapy,45,106 warranting evaluation using the FRAX score and considering vitamin D and bisphosphonates. Participation in clinical trials with chemo-free regimens is encouraged.

Recommendations for patients aged≥80 or unfit≤80

● Use geriatric assessment tools to optimize therapy[I, B].

● Assess and manage osteoporosis risk[I,B].

● Consider a prephase corticosteroids to improve performance[I, B].A single intravenous 1mg dose of vincristine can be added to corticosteroid prephase[I, B].

● Offer R-miniCHOP x 6 cycles for fit patients≥80[I, B].

● Offer non-anthracycline-based regimens for patients with cardiac dysfunction or signs of heart failure[I, B], with appropriate man-agement of cardiac function.

● Participation in clinical trials with chemo-free regimens is encouraged.

● Patient preferences should be considered in treatment decisions.

REFRACTORY/RELAPSED LBCL

Although the majority of patients can be cured with 1L immunochemotherapy, approximately 30%-40% will have primary refractory LBCL or relapse of LBLCL after initial remission. Primary refractory disease is defined as SD or PD during, or by the end of 1L treatment.107 Relapse after an initial response may be early(within 12 months of completing immunochemotherapy) or late(>12 months). This impacts the prognosis and treatment strategy.

Emotional distress assessment should at a minimum be per-formed at every treatment milestone, including relapse. It is also important to recheck patient preferences, as they may have changed since initial therapy.

Diagnostic approach to refractory/relapsed disease

Before starting 2L, biopsy should be performed[III, B].108,109 This is to confirm that the physical findings/imaging results are indeed due to relapsed LBCL rather than other malignancies, an alternative lymphoma histology requiring a distinct approach, or another diag-nosis, such as sarcoid-like reaction.19 Additionally, it is important to determine the expression of targetable antigens such as CD19 and CD20.

Patient fitness and time from relapse should be assessed to select the appropriate treatment approach.

2L therapy

At the time of relapse, refractory disease or relapse is defined by the persistence or reappearance of lymphoma. During treatment, the presence of only a partial metabolic response assessed by PET-CT is considered by most clinicians as treatment failure, and biopsy should be performed to confirm the refractoriness.

Primary refractory or relapse within 12 months of completing the first-line treatment

In transplant-eligible patients with primary refractory disease or relapse within 12 months of completing first-line treatment, two of three randomized-controlled trials110-114 have demonstrated a clini-cally and statistically significant benefit when treated with CAR T-cells, axicabtagene cableucel(axi-cel), or lioscabtagene maraleucel(liso-cel). Using axi-cel, after a median follow-up of 24.9 months, the estimated event-free survival(EFS) at 2 years was 41% versus 16%,respectively(hazard ratio[HR], 0.40; 95% confidence interval[Cl],0.31-0.51,P<0.001).110 Furthermore, in a recent follow-up update(median 47.2 months), better OS was also observed in the axi-cel arm,with 4-year estimates of 55% versus 46%, respectively(HR, 0.73;95% CI, 0.54-0.98; P=0.03)[I, A].113 Using liso-cel, after a median follow-up of 17.5 months, the median EFS had not been reached in the liso-cel arm and was 2.4 months in the standard treatment arm(HR,0.36;95% CI,0.2-0.52,P<0.001). A trend toward better OS was also observed in the liso-cel arm(73% vs. 61% at 18 months),although the difference was not statistically significant(HR, 0.72;95% CI, 0.44-1.18; P=0.0987)[I, A].112,115 Clinical trials have also been carried out with loiso-cel(PILOT)116 and axi-cel(ALYCANTE)115 as the second-line treatment in patients who are not candidates for

HemaSphere

11 of 19

transplant due to their age, comorbidities, or compromised organ function.

Relapse>12 months of completing the first-line treatment and fit for intensive therapies

Patients fit for intensive therapies are typically under the age of 70 without significant comorbidities/organ dysfunction. Fit patients over the age of 70 may derive benefit, but they may have a slower func-tional recovery.

The standard approach consists of reinduction im-munochemotherapy and stem cell collection, followed in patients with CMR by HD-CT and ASCT.117 This results in long-term PFS rates of around 40% in late relapsing patients, but less than 15%-20% in primary refractory or early relapsing patients.Commonly used regimens include R-DHAP, R-ICE, R-GDP, and R-ESHAP. Randomized studies and comparison of outcomes of Phase II data suggest that these regimens have similar efficacy, but R-GDP has the advantage that it can be delivered in an out-patient setting.118 Patients in CMR after two cycles can proceed to HD-CT with carmusline/BCNU, etoposide, cytarabine, and melphalan(BEAM) or variants such as carmusline/BCNU, etopo-side, cytarabine, and cyclophosphamide(BEAC)119 or bend-amustine+etoposide+cytarabine+melphalan(BeEAM)120 or fotomustine+etoposide+cytarabine+melphalan(FEAM).121

Patients not eligible for CAR T-cell therapy(relapse<12 months) or patients not eligible for HD-CT/ASCT(relapse>12 months)

Significant challenges remain in the use of CAR-T therapy. First,given the need for rapid treatment in patients with aggressive chemo-refractory disease, delays in product manufacturing may affect patient eligibility, so"bridging" therapy with steroids, RT, or im-munochemotherapy is needed in most cases to control the disease until the product can be infused.122-124 Patients whose general condition has deteriorated(PS≥ 2) or who have a large tumor volume or and rapidly increasing LDH levels have worse outcome with CAR-T therapy.122-126

Immunochemotherapy such as R-GEMOX127 can be considered.Tafasamitab-lealidomide128-130 is approved in this setting. How-ever, patients with refractory disease were primarily excluded from the pivotal trial. Moreover, the outcome of early relapsed(<6 months)disease in real-life series was worse than reported in the original study.131 Polatuzumab vedotin(Pola-BR) is an effective regimen.132 Bendamustmine might impair T-cell fitness and could hamper the ef-fectivity of ecorptamite, grofabitam, and odronextamab, which could be used in the third line. For patients with limited disease, ISRT is an option. For some patients, best supportive care should be discussed.

Recently approved, the combination of the bispecific antibody glofi-tamab with gemox(Glofem-gemox) was shown to be superior to R-gem-ox,with a superior OS(median 25.5 months[18.3-NE] vs. 12.9 months[7.9-18.5]; HR 0.62[0.43-0.88]) and PFS, with a median follow-up of 20.7 months(19.9-23.3).133 The recommendation is to consider bispecific gloftamab+ gemox for patients ineligible for ASCT. Ecorpitamab+ gemox is under investigation134 and should also be considered for patients in eligible for HDT/ASCT when approved, as well as Pola-R-gemox.

Summary of recommendations

- Before starting 2L treatment, a biopsy is strongly recommended[III, B].

- Patients with refractory disease or relapse within 12 months of completion of first-line treatment: offer axicabtagene cileucel[I, A] or liscobtagene maraleucel[I, A].

-CAR T-cell therapy may not be appropriate in patients with PS≥2 or who have a large tumor volume and/or rapidly increasing LDH levels.122,125

- Patients who relapse>1 year of completion of 1L therapy and who are fit for intensive therapy: offer immunochemotherapy(R-DHAX[P or C], R-ICE, R-GDP, R-ESHAP) and in case of che-mosensitivity(CMR or very good PR=HD-CT[BEAM, BEAC,BeEAM, and FEAM], followed by ASCT[I, B].

- Patients not eligible for CAR T-cell therapy(relapse< 12 months)or patients not eligible for HD-CT/ASCT(relapse> 12 months):offer R-gem-ox or pola-BR[III, B].

-Consider gloftamab+ GemOx[I, A] or ecoritamab+ GemOx[I,III,C] when approved and reimbursed for patients ineligible for ASCT[III, C].

Consider tafasamtab-lenalidomide in non-refractory patients[III,C].

- In limited-stage disease: consider palliative radiation(IS-RT).

- In unfit patients: consider best supportive care.

3L and beyond

The different routes to third-line therapy and beyond require a tai-lored approach to patient management, based on prior treatment and patient preference. Biopsy is highly recommended prior to 3L parti-cularly, given high rates of target antigen loss that will increasingly guide treatment decisions.

Anti-CD19 CAR-T therapies(axi-cel, tisa-cel, and liso-cel) are approved for R/R LBCL after two or more prior lines of therapy based on single-arm pivotal trials, given the high ORRs of 52%-83% with CRRs between 40% and 53%.135-137 Responses have proven to be durable in approximately 40% of patients.138-140 These findings have been confirmed through the reporting of"real-word" experience from multiple consortia.130,141-145 Product choice may be guided by differential availability across territories and toxicity profiles. Con-sideration should be given to optimal bridging strategies.124 Selection of the patients for CAR-T is recommended based on PS and evalua-tion of the aggressivity of the tumor(e.g., large tumor volume or rapidly increasing LDH levels).

CD2O-CD3 bispecific antibodies are proving to be highly ef-ficacious in the treatment of R/R LBCL. Three molecules, glofita-mab, egcoripetamab, and odronextamab, are approved in R/R LBCL patients after two prior lines of therapy.146-148 CR rates of around 40% were described in these intensively pretreated and mostly refractory patients, with no significant differences with respect to prior exposure to CAR-T cell therapy. The remissions seem long-lasting, since most patients who achieve CR maintain it for at least 1 year.

Additional recently introduced potential therapeutic agents in-clude locastumab titresine, an antibody drug conjugate targeting CD19 with a pyrrolobenzodiazepine payload,149 and tafasamab,a CD19-directed humanized antibody, in combination with lenalidomide.128

In all patients, the choice of therapy should be based on shared decision-making, taking into account the patient's wishes in terms of life goals, mode/frequency of delivery, duration of therapy,and toxicity. Palliative chemotherapy/steroids can be considered,including combinations that may include etoposide, cyclopho-shamide, lomustine, or procarbazine. ${}^{ 150- 153}$ Also, palliative RT and best supportive care should be discussed.

12 of 19

Summary of recommendations

Available options for patients with R/R LBCLF after≥2 prior lines of therapy are multiple and the choice of therapy should be tailored based on patient wishes in terms of life goals, comorbidities,ECOG PS, previously used regimens, duration of therapy and toxicities, and mode/frequency of delivery.

These options are as follows:

* if not treated with anti-CD19 CAR T-cells in the second line:offer CD19 CAR T-cell therapy(axi-cel[III, A],tisa-cel[III, A],or liso-cel[III, A]).

* if CAR-exposed: offer CD20xCD3 bispecific antibody(epitramab[III, C], glofitamab[III, C], odronextamab[III, C]),loncastuximab teresirine[III, C], tafasitamab-lenalidomide[III, C],or an immunochoemotherapy regimen.

- Consider the patient for a clinical trial.

- In limited-stage disease: consider palliative radiation(IS-RT).

- In unfit patients: consider best supportive care(Figure 2).

FOLLOW-UP, LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS, AND SURVORSHIP

Patients with DLBCL who are event-free at 2 years after diagnosis have an identical OS to that of the general population, emphasizing the need to only specifically monitor the disease in this early period.154

Patients should be aware of possible symptoms or relapse/pro-gression and urgent contact details in these occurrences. An EoT

consultation should be offered to every patient. This should include an EoT Holistic Needs Assessment(HNA) and associated written care plan and should also include the discussion and provision of a com-prehensive treatment summary. On successful completion of treat-ment, both the patient and their general practitioner(GP) should be made aware of follow-up plans and potential future disease or treatment-related issues.

Careful history and physical examination for at least 2 years or longer with attention to development of secondary tumors or other long-term side effects of treatment is recommended based on the cumulative dose and anthracyclines and radiation exposure[III, C].

Blood count should be carried out at least for 2 years, and then only as needed for evaluation of suspicious symptoms or clinical findings in those patients suitable for further therapy[III,C].

Routine surveillance PET scans are not recommended due to the lack of evidence for outcome improvement.155-157 Inconclusive po-sitive PET results should prompt biopsy or repeat PET-CT where feasible.47,158 Patients with LBCL who are event-free at 2 years have an OS comparable to that of the general population, highlighting the importance of focused disease monitoring during this early period.154 For high-risk patients eligible to chimeric antigen receptor T(CART), a PET-CT may be repeated within 6-12 months after the EoT. After 5 years of relapse-free follow-up, patients can be considered cured.

Long-term side effects of chemotherapy, such as anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity, require monitoring.159,160

Echocardiography and cardiology referrals are recommended for all patients(anthracyclines, CAR-T, autograft, and bispecifics)

![R/R LBCL\nStratification of the patients by time to failure\n2L\nBiopsy recommended\n2021\nPrimary refractory or R<12 months\nR>12 months\nCAR-T eligible\nNo intention to proceed to CAR-T\nTransplant eligible\nNo intention to proceed to transplant\nAxi-cel[i, A] or liso-cel[i, A]\nGloftamab-GemOx [1, A],\nClinal trial, 2L therapy*\nBlycholamab-GemOx [1, A]\nfor best supportive care\nDecision influenced by prior treatments, condition of the disease and patient's overall status\n3+L\nBiopsy strongly recommended\nCAR-T[III, A], bispecific antibodies[III, C], loncastmaximab\nin limited stage: IS-RT\nClinical trials\ntesirine[III, C], tafasatamab-LEN[III, C], Pola-BR[III, B]\n2L therapy: epcoratimab+ Gemox[III, C] when available; tafasatamab-LEN[III, C] in non refractory patients; R-chemotherapy of [B], B: R-GemOx or Pola-BR[II, B]\n*2L therapy: epcoratimab+ Gemox[III, C] when available; tafasatamab-LEN[III, C] in non refractory patients; R-chemotherapy of B, B: R-GemOx or Pola-BR[II, B]\n*2LImmunochemotherapy before HDT/ASC: R-DHAX(P or CJ), R-ICE, R-GDP, R-ESHAP; in case of CMR, proceed to HDT/ASC[1, A]\nCAR T-cell therapy in 3rd line: axi-cel, tisa-cel, liso-cel\nCAR-T-cell therapy may not be appropriate in patients with PS>2 or who have a large tumor volume and/or rapidly increasing LDH level\nAnti-CD20/CD3 bispecific antibodies: gloftamab, ecoritamab and odronextamab\n](2/aj0YEe4oUhYkBdfpda0fYP/figurec8c12bdedbe44a82b675112c7ac8f18c_0_18.png) CAR-T-cell therapy in 3rd line: axi-cel, tisa-cel, liso-cel CAR-T-cell therapy may not be appropriate in patients with PS>2 or who have a large tumor volume and/or rapidly increasing LDH level

Anti-CD20/CD3 bispecific antibodies: gloftamab, ecoritamab and odronextamab

FIGURE 2 Algorithm. Treatment for large B-cell lymphoma(LBLCL) in 2L and 3+L ASCT, autologous stem cell transplant; CMR, complete metabolic response;CR, complete response; HDT, high- dose therapy; IS-RT, involved site radiotherapy; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; Pola-BR, polatuzumab vedotin, bendamustin,rituximab,PR,partial response;PS,performance status;R-DHAX(P or C),rituximab,dexamethasone,cytarabine,and oxaliplatin(cisplatin or carboplatin); R-ESHAP,rituximab,etoposide, cisplatin, and methylprednisolone;R-GDP,rituximab, gemcitabine, dexamethasone, and cisplatin; R-GemOx, rituximab, gemcitabine-oxaliplatin;R-ICE, rituximab, ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide.

HemaSphere

with a cardiology consultation 1 year after the EoT, including ECG,lipid profile, HbA1C, and echocardiography. Particularly, for patients with fewer than three cardiovascular risk factors, echocardiography at the end at the anthracycline treatment and for patients with more than three cardiovascular risk factors, echocardiography at the end of anthracycline treatment and at 3 months is recommended. During long-term follow-up, for patients who were received≥300 mg/m2 of doxorubicin, or doxorubicin combined with mediastinal RT, or those with underlying heart disease or who experienced cardiotoxicity,annual screening for cardiovascular risk factors including ECG+echocardiogram(ECHO) at 3 and 5 years, and then every 5 years is recommended.

Include monitoring for long-term immune dysfunction, as pa-tients remain at increased risk of infections postreatment. Pre-ventative strategies such as vaccinations and antimicrobial prophylaxis should be incorporated when indicated.

Polyneuropathy should be addressed early with treatments like gabapentin and duoxetine.

Smoking cessation counseling is essential for all patients.

Many patients suffer from fatigue or anxiety. 161 Therefore, routine assessments for these should be integrated into follow-up care, with referrals to psychological and rehabilitation support services as needed to address mental distress and fear of recurrence. Psychological distress may still occur and may be life-impacting for the patient.

Distress screening should at a minimum be performed at every treatment milestone, including when the patient is in survivorship follow-up, to ensure timely referral to support as needed.162

Evidence-based lifestyle interventions, such as physical activity and a healthy diet, should be recommended to manage fatigue, im-prove cardiovascular health, and support long-term recovery.162

Secondary tumors are rare in DLBCL due to the median age of presentation but warrant attention in younger patients exposed to mediastinal RT, with breast cancer screening recommended starting 8 years after the end of RT, consisting of a single oblique incidence mammogram without tomosynthesis, complemented by ultrasound and breast MRI[5D]. From the age of 50, mammograms should be performed every 2 years. TSH testing has to be checked at 1, 2, and 5 years if neck irradiation was performed.163

Summary of recommendations

- Offer an EoT consultation to every patient.

- Avoid routine surveillance CT scans or PET-CT scans in asymp-tomatic patients(3B). For high-risk patients eligible for CART,PET-CT may be performed within 6-12 months from the EoT.

Careful history and physical examination at least for 2 years, with attention to development of secondary tumors or other long-term side effects of chemotherapy, is recommended [III, C].

- Blood count should be carried out at least for 2 years, and then only as needed, for evaluation of suspicious symptoms or clinical findings[III, C].

- Cardiology referrals and echocardiogram surveillance are re-commended within the 1-year post-treatment, then at 3 years and at 5 years, and then every 5 years.

-Polyneuropathy should be addressed early.

-Fatigue can be persistent. Screening is warranted to ensure that there is no underlying cause. Patients should also be given cred-ible, understandable information on cancer-related fatigue and coping mechanisms.

- Psychological concerns like anxiety and fear of recurrence are frequent. Refer patients for psychological support as needed.

- Smoking cessation, breast cancer screening.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Catherine Thielement: Conceptualization; writing-original draft;validation; supervision. Maria Gomes Da Silva: Conceptualization; writing-original draft. Sirpa Leppa: Conceptualization; writing-original draft. Georg Lee:Conceptualization; writing-original draft.Anne-Ségolene Cotteereau: Conceptualization; writing-original draft. Christopher Fox: Conceptualization; writing-original draft.Armando Lopez-Guillermo: Conceptualization; writing-original draft. Wojciech Jurczak: Conceptualization; writing-original draft. Hans Ech: Conceptualization; writing-original draft. Igor Aurer: Con-ceptualization; writing-original draft. Marek Trneny: Con-ceptualization; writing-original draft. Andy Andreas Rosenwald:Conceptualization; writing-original draft. Andrew Davies: Con-ceptualization; writing-original draft. Ben(Gerben) Zwezerijnen:Conceptualization; writing-original draft. Natacha Bolanos: Con-ceptualization; writing-original draft. Maja Markovic: Con-ceptualization; writing-original draft. Jean-Philippe Jais:Methodology. Florence Broussais: Methodology; project adminis-tration; writing-review and editing. Martin Dreyling: Supervision.Umberto Vitolo: Conceptualization; writing-original draft. HervéTilly: Conceptualization; writing-original draft. Marie-José Kersten:Conceptualization; writing-original draft; supervision.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

Catherine Thielement discloses a direct financial relationship(honoraria) with Janssen, Roche, AbbVie, Novartis, BMS, Incyte,and BeiGene. Maria Gomes Da Silva discloses financial and/or professional relationships with Janssen Cilag(Direct and Indirect), Roche(Direct), Lilly(Direct and Indirect), AstraZeneca(Direct), Bildata(Direct), BeiGene(Indirect), AbbVie(Direct and Indirect), and Takeda(Direct), and professional relationships with Sociedade. Portuguese de Hematologia. Sirpa Leppa discloses a direct financial relationship with AbbVie, Genmbav, Incyte, Roche, and Sobi, and an indirect financial relationship with Bayer, BMS,Genmab, Hutched, Novartis, and Roche. Georg Lenz discloses a direct financial relationship with Roche/Genentech, Gilead, Movartis,FLINDR, Hexal/Sandoz, Lilly, BeiGene, and MSD, and an indirect financial relationship with Roche/Genentech, Gilead,Bayer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, MSD, and Pierre Fabre,Armando Lopez-Gullermo discloses a direct financial relationship with AbbVie, Atarbio, BMS, GenMab,Gilead/Kite, Incyte, Janssen,Lilly, Morphosys, Ono, Roche, SERB, SOBI, and Takeda, and an indirect financial relationship with BeiGene and AbbVie. Timothy Illidge discloses a direct financial relationship with Takeda. WJ discloses a direct and indirect financial relationship with AbbVie,AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Janssen Cilag, Lilly, Regeneron, and Roche.Hans Eich discloses a direct financial relationship(honoraria) with Kyowa Kirin and Takeda and serve as a Steering Committee Member of the International Lymphoma Radiation Oncology Group(ILROG). Igor Aurer discloses a direct financial relationship with Roche, Novartis/Sandoz, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Genesis/Incyte,Sobi, and Takeda. Marek Trneny discloses a direct financial relationship with Roche, Gilead, AstraZeneca, Sobi, Takeda, Incyte,Lilly, BMS, Novartis, AbbVie, Janssen, Swixx, Carbou Sciences, and Autolus. Andrew Davies discloses a direct financial relationship with Roche(conference attendance, honorarium for talks, advisory boards), AstraZeneca, Kite/Gilead, Sobi, AbbVie, Genmab, Celgene,MDS, Incyte, and Janssen(adory boards), and an indirect fi-nancial relationship(research funding) with Roche, AstraZeneca,Kite/Gilead, Celgene, and MSD. Natacha Bolanos discloses an

14 of 19

indirect financial relationship with Roche, Ipsen, Kite-Gilead,Janssen,Lilly, Novartis, Sobi,Takeda, and BMS, as the Lymphoma Coalition that has received sponsorship from these companies to sup-port specific activities such as educational, advocacy initiatives,CABs, Global Patient Surveys, and Global Summits. Additionally, I am a member of the Patient Global Advisory Board for Ipsen.Martin Dreyling discloses a financial relationship through scientific advisory board honoraria with Abbvie, Astra Zeneca, AvenCell,Beigene,BMS,Genmab,Gilead/Kitec,Janesvlin,Likec,Roche.Umbayto,Lloxo,Novartis, Roche, Sobi; and research support(institution) Abbvie,Gilead/Kite,Janssen,Lilly,Roche.Bumerto Vitoso colloves a direct financial relationship with AbbVie, Genmab, and Gilead(advisory board and lecture honoraria), as well as Incyte and MSD(lecture honoraria). Hervé Tilly discloses a direct financial relationship with Roche and an indirect financial relationship with Roche, As-trazeneca, BMS, and AbbVie. Marie-José Kersten disclose an in-direct financial relationship with Bristol Myers Squibb, Kite/Gilead,Miltenyi Biosh, Novartis, Roche, Adicet Bio, AbbVie, BeiGene,Galapagos, Mustang Bio, and Janssen. Anne-Ségolène Cottereau,Andy Andreas Rosenwald, Ben(Gerben) Zwezerijnen, Maja Mar-kovic, Jean-Philippe Jais, Florence Broussais have no conflicts of interest.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in PubMed at https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

FUNDING

This research received no funding.

ORCID

Sirpa Leppa https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8265-511X

Florence Broussais https://orcid.org/0009-0004-5841-5409

Marie-José Kersten https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8904-3802

REFERENCES

1. Wang SS. Epidemiology and etiology of diffuse large B-cell lym-phoma. Sem Hematol. 2023;60:255-266.

2. Kanas G,Ge W, Quek RGW, Keeven K, Nersesyan K, Arnason JE.Epidemiology of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma(DLBCL) and fell-ular lymphoma(FL) in the United States and Western Europe;population-level projections for 2020-2025. Leuk Lymphoma.2022;63:54-63.

3.Cerhan JR, Kricker A, Paltiel O, et al. Medical history, lifestyle, fa-mily history, and occupational risk factors for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: the InterLymph Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Subtypes Project.JNClO Monogr.2014;2014:15-25.

4.Campo E, Jaffe ES, Cook JR, et al. The International Consensus Classification of Mature Lymphoid Neoplasms: a report from the Clinical Advisory Committee. Blood. 2022;140:1229-1253.

5.Alaggio R,Amador C,Anagnostopoulos I,et al.The 5th edition of the World Health Organization Classification of Haemato-lymphoid Tumours: Lymphoid Neoplasms. Leukemia. 2022;36:1720-1748.

6.Medeiros LJ, Chadburn A, Natkunam Y, Naresh PN. WHO 5th Edition Classification Project. Fifth Edition of the World Health Classification of Tumors of the Hematopoietic and Lymphoid Tis-sues: B-Cell Neoplasms. Mod Pathol. 2024;37:100441.

7. Savage JJ, Johnson NA, Ben-Neriah S, et al. MYC gene re-arrangements are associated with a poor prognosis in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients treated with R-CHOP chemotherapy.Blood.2009;114:3533-3537.

8. Rosenwald A, Bens S, Advani R, et al. Prognostic significance of MYC rearrangement and translocation partner in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a study by the Lunenburg Lymphoma Biomarker Consortium.J Clin Oncol.2019;37:3359-3368.

9. Alizadeh AA, Eisen MB, Davis RE, et al. Distinct types of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma identified by gene expression profiling.Nature.2000:403:511.

10.Lenz G,Wright G, Dave SS,et al. Stromal gene signatures in large-B-cell lymphomas. N Engl J Med.2008;359:2313-2323.

11. Younes A, Sehn Hl, Johnson P, et al. Randomized phase III trial of ibrutin and rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vin-cristine, and prednisone in non-germinal center B-cell diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:1285-1295.

12.Tilly H, Morschauser F, Sehn LH, et al. Polatuzumab vedotin in previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med.2022;386:351-363.

13. Davies AJ, Barrans S, Stanton L, et al. Differential efficacy from the addition of bortozomib to R-CHOP in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma according to the molecular subgroup in the REMoDL-B study with a 5-year follow-up. J Clin Oncol. 2023;41:2718-2723.

14.Thiefferom C, Briere J, Mounier N, et al. The germinal center/activated B-cell subclassification has a prognostic impact for re-sponse to salvage therapy in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a bio-CORAL study. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:4079-4087.

15.Schmitz R,Wert GW,Huang DW,et al.Genetics and pathogenesis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med.2018;378:1396-1407.

16. Chapuy B, Stewart C, Dunford AJ, et al. Molecular subtypes of diffuse large B cell lymphoma are associated with distinct patho-genic mechanisms and outcomes. Nat Med. 2018;24:679-690.

17.Green TM, Young KH, Visco C,et al.Immunohistochemical double-hit score is a strong predictor of outcome in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with rituximab plus cyclopho-sphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone. J Clin Oncol.2012:30:3460-3467.

18.Barrington SF, Mikaehel NG, Kostakoglu L, et al. Role of imaging in the staging and response assessment of lymphoma: consensus of the International Conference on Malignant Lymphomas Imaging Working Group.J Clin Oncol.2014;32:3048-3058.

19. Cheson BD, Fisher RI, Barrington SF, et al. Recommendations for initial evaluation, staging, and response assessment of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma: the Lugano classification. J Clin Oncol.2014;32:3059-3067.

20.El-Galaly TC, Villa D, Alzahrani M, et al. Outcome prediction by intranadol involvement, IPI, R-IPI, and NCCN-IPI in the PET/CT and rituximab era: a Danish-Canadian study of 443 patients with diffuse-large B-cell lymphoma. Am J Hematol.2015;90:1041-1046.

21.Azhahrani M,El-Galaly TC, Hutchings M,et al.The value of routine bone marrow biopsy in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma staged with PET/CT: a Danish-Canadian study.Ann Oncol.2016;27:1095-1099.

22. Khan AB,Barrington SF,Mikhaeel NG,et al.PET-CT staging of DLBCL accurately identifies and provides new insight into the clinical sig-nificance of bone marrow involvement. Blood. 2013;122:61-67.

23.Campbell J, Seymour JF, Matthews J, Wolf M, Stone J, Juneja S.The prognostic impact of bone marrow involvement in patients with diffuse large cell lymphoma varies according to the degree of infiltration and presence of discordant marrow involvement. Eur J Haematol.2006;76:473-480.

24.Sehn LH, Scott DW, Chhanabhai M, et al. Impact of concordant and discordant bone marrow involvement on outcome in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with R CHOP. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:1452-1457.

25.Cerci JJ,Gyorke T,Fanti S,et al. Combined PET and biopsy evi-dence of marrow involvement improves prognostic prediction in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.J Nucl Med.2014;55:1591-1597.

$$\text{ HemaSphere}$$

15 of 19

26. Adams HJA, Kwee TC, de Keizer B, Fujinherer R, de Klerk JMH,Nivesteinberger RAJ. FDG PET/CT for the detection of bone marrow involvement in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:565-574.

27.Sehn LH,Berry B,Chanabah M,et al.The revised International Prognostic Index(R-IPI) is a better predictor of outcome than the standard IPI for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated in H-CHOP. Blood.2007;109:1857-1861.

28.Zhou Z, Sehn LH, Rademaker AW, et al. An enhanced Interna-tional Prognostic Index(NCCN-IIPI) for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated in the rituximab era. Blood.2014;123:837-842.

29. Ruppert AS, Dixon JG,Salles G.Res,et al. International prognostic in-dices in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a comparison of IPI,R-IPI,and NCCN-II. Blood 2020;135:2041-2048.

0.International Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma Prognostic Factors Pro-ject. A predictive model for aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.N Engl J Med.1993;329:987-994.

31. Schmitz N, Zeynalova S, Nickelsen M, et al. CNS International Prognostic index: a risk model for CNS relapse in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with R-CHOP. J Clin Oncol.2016;34:3150-3156.

32.Meganman S, Sasanelli M, Casasnovas RO,et al. Metabolic tumour volumes measured at staging in lymphoma: methodological eva-luation on phantom experiments and patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging.2014;41:1113-1122.

33.Cottereau AS, Lanic H, Mareschal S, et al. Molecular profile and FDG-PET/CT total metabolic tumor volume improve risk classifi-cation at diagnosis for patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma.Clin Cancer Res.2016;22:3801-3809.

34.Schmitz C,Huttmann A, Müller SP,et al. Dynamic risk assessment based on positron emission tomography scanning in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: post-hoc analysis from the PETAL trial. Eur J Cancer.2020;124:25-36.

35.Boellaard R, Buvat I, Nioche C, et al. International benchmark for total metabolic tumor volume measurement in baseline 18F-FDG PET/CT of lymphoma patients: a milestone toward clinical im-plementation.J Nucl Med.2024;65:1343-1348.

Kurtz DM, Scherer F, Jin MC, et al. Circulating tumor DNA mea-surements as early outcome predictors in diffuse large B-cell lym-moma. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:2845-2853.

37.Vercellino L, Cottereau AS, Casasnovas O, et al. High total meta-bolic tumor volume at baseline predicts survival independent of response to therapy. Blood. 2020;135:1396-1405.

38. Kostakoglu L, Dalmasso F, Berchiaali P, et al. A prognostic model integrating PET-derived metrics and image texture analyses with clinical risk factors from GOYA. EJHaem. 2022;3:406-414.

39.Mikhaelic No, Heymans W, Eertink JJ, et al. Proposed new dynamic prognostic index for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma:International Metabolic Prognostic Index.J Clin Oncol.2022:40:2352-2360.

40. Thieblemont C,Chartier L,Dührsen U,et al.A tumor volume and performance status model to predict outcome before treatment in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Blood Adv. 2022;6:5995-6004.

41.Cotterau AS, Meignan M, Nioche C, et al. Risk stratification in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma using lesion dissemination and me-tabolic tumor burden calculated from baseline PET/CT. Ann Oncol.2021;32:404-411.

42. Eertink JJ, Zwezerijnen GJC, Heymans MW, et al. Baseline PET radiomics outperforms the IPI risk score for prediction of outcome in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Blood. 2023;141:3055-3064.

43. Baechan J, Hansen SM, Jakoben LH, et al. Increased risk of osteo-porosis following commonly used first-line treatments for lym-phoma: a Danish Nationwide Cohort Study. Leuk Lymphoma.2020;61:1345-1354.

44. Homik J, Suarez-Almazor ME, Shea B, Cranney A, Wells G,Tugwell P. Calcium and vitamin D for corticosteroid-induced os-toporosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.1998;2000:CD000952.

45. Westin JR, Thompson MA, Cataldo VD, et al. Zoledronic acid for prevention of bone loss in patients receiving primary therapy for lymphomas: a prospective, randomized controlled phase III trial.Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk.2013;13:99-105.

46. Spasevska I, Mater al, ECh, Ttabch K, et al. Calcium channel blockers impair the antitumor activity of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies by blocking EGR-1 production. Mol Cancer Ther. 2020;19:2371-2381.

47. Luigi Zinzani P, Stefoni V, Tani M, et al. Role of[18F]fluorodeox-yglucose positron tomography scan in the follow-up of lymphoma.J Clin Oncol.2009;27:1781-1787.

48. Kostakoglu L, Martelli M, Sehn LH, et al. End-of-treatment PET/CT predicts PFS and INDLBCL after first-line treatment: results from GOYA. Blood Adv.2021;5:1283-1290.

49.Uhrsen U,Müller S,Hertenstein B,et al. Positron emission tomography-guided therapy of aggressive non-Hodgkin lympho-mas(PETAL): a multicenter, randomized phase III trial. J Clin Oncol.2018;36:2024-2034.

50.Eertink JJ, Arens AlJ, Huijbregts JE, et al. Aberrant patterns of PET response during treatment for DLBCL patients with MYC gene rearrangements. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022;49:943-952.

51.Sehn LH,Sales G. Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med.2021;384:842-858.

52.Pfreundschuh M,Schubert J,Ziepert M,et al.Six versus eight cy-cles of bi-weekly CHOP-14 with or without rituximab in elderly patients with aggressive CD20+ B-cell lymphomas: a randomised controlled trial(RICOVER-60). Lancet Oncol. 2008;9:105-116.

53.Smith S. Transformed lymphoma: what should I do now?Hematology.2020;2020:306-311.

5.Poeschel V, Held G, Ziepert M, et al. Four versus six cycles of CHOP chemotherapy in combination with six applications of ri-tuximab in patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma with favour-able prognosis(FLVER): a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.Lancet.2019;394:2271-2281.

55. Bologna S, Vander Borght T, Briere J, et al. Early positron emission tomography response adapted treatment in localized diffuse large B-cell lymphoma(AAIPI= 0): results of the phase 3 LYSA LNH 09-1B trial. Hematol Oncol. 2021;39(S2):31-32.

56.Persky DO, Li H, Stephens DM, et al. Positron emission tomography-directed therapy for patients with limited-stage dif-fuse large B-cell lymphoma: results of Intergroup National Clinical Trials Network Study S1001.J Clin Oncol.2020;38:3003-3011.

5.Vitolo U,Trénny M, Belada D, et al. Obinutuzumab or rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone in previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol.2017;35:3529-3537.

58.Lamy T, Damaj G, Soubeyran P, et al. R-CHOP 14 with or without radiotherapy in nonbulky limited-stage diffuse large B-cell lym-phonoma. Blood.2018;131:174-181.

59.Wirth A,Mikhaeel NG,Aleman BMP,et al. Involved site radiation therapy in adult lymphomas: an overview of International Lym-phoma Radiation Oncology Group guidelines. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys.2020:107:909-933.

60.Grass GD, Mills MN, Ahmed KA, et al. Radiotherapy for early stage diffuse large B-cell lymphoma with or without double or triple hit genetic alterations. Leuk Lymphoma. 2019;60:886-893.

61. Barraclough A, Alzahrani M, Etrup MS,et al. COO and MYC/BCL2 status do not predict outcome among patients with stage I/II DLBCL: a retrospective multicenter study. Blood Adv. 2019;3:2013-2021.

62.Torka P, Kothari SK, Sundaram S, et al. Outcomes of patients with limited-stage aggressive large B-cell lymphoma with high-risk cy-togenetics. Blood Adv.2020;4:253-262.

16 of 19

63. Cunningham D, Hawkes EA, Jack A, et al. Rituximab plus cyclo-phosphamide, doxorubicin vincristin, and prednisolone in patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma:a phase 3 comparison of dose intensification with 14-day versus 21-day cycles. Lancet.2013;381:1817-1826.

64. Delarue R,Tilly H, Mounier N,et al. Dose-dense rituximab-CHOP compared with standard rituximab-CHOP in elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma(the LNHO3-6B study): a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:525-533.

5. Leppa S, Jorgensen J, Tierns A, et al. Patients with high-risk DLBCL benefit from dose-dense immunochemotherapy combined with early systemic CNS prophylaxis. Blood Adv.2020;4:1906-1915.

66. Basic-Kinda S, Radman I, Dujmovic D, et al. R-CHOEP14 in younger high-risk patients with large B cell lymphoma: an effective front-line regimen with cardiac toxicity: a real-life, single-center experi-ence. Ann Hematol.2021:100:1517-1524.

7.Lenz G,Tilly H,Ziepert M,et al.Pola-R-CHOP or R-CHOEP for first-line therapy of younger patients with high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a retrospective comparison of two randomized phase 3 trials. Leukemia.2024;38:2709-2711.

68.Freeman CL,Savage KJ, Villa DR,et al. Long-term results of PET-guided radiation in patients with advanced-stage diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with R-CHOP. Blood. 2021:137:929-938.

69. Dendle C, Gilbertson M, Spelman T, et al. Infection is an in-dependent predictor of death in diffuse large B cell lymphoma. Sci Rep.2017;7:4395.

70. Pettengell R, Johnson HE, Lugtenburg PJ, et al. Impact of febrile neutropenia on R-CHOP chemotherapy delivery and hospitaliza-tions among patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Supp Care Cancer.2012;20:647-652.

71.Eyre TA,Wulin K, Kirkwood AA,et al.Infection-related morbidity and mortality among older patients with DLBCL treated with full-or attenuated-dose R-CHOP. Blood Adv.2021:5:2229-2236.

72. Ferrari AJM, Doorduijn JK, Re A,et al. MATRix-RICE therapy and autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma with secondary CNS involvement(MARIETTA): an international, single-arm, phase 2 trial. Lancet Haematol.2021;8:e110-e121.

73.Eyre TA, Savage KJ, Cheah CY, et al. CNS prophylaxis for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23:e416-e426.

72. Eyre TA, Savage KJ, Cheah CY, et al. CNS prophylaxis for diffuse central nervous system prophylaxis with stand-alone in-trathecal chemotherapy in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma pa-tients treated with anthracycline-based chemotherapy in the rituximab era: a systematic review. Haematologica. 2020;105:1914-1924.

75. El-Galaly TC, Villa D, Michaelseni TY, et al. The number of extra-nodal sites assessed by PET/CT scan is a powerful predictor of CNS relapse for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: an inter-national multicenter study of 1532 patients treated with che-moimmunotherapy. Eur J Cancer.2017;75:195-203.

76.Frontzek F,Renaud L,Dührsen U,et al. Identification,risk factors,and clinical course of CNS relapse in DLBCL patients across 19 prospective phase 2 and 3 trials a-LSA and GLA/DSHNHL colla-boration. Leukemia.2024;38:2225-2234.

77.Klanova M,Sehn LH,Bence Bruckler,I.et al.Integration of cell of origin into the clinical CNS International Prognostic Index im-proves CNS relapse prediction in DLBCL. Blood. 2019;133:919-926.

78.Thieblemont C, Altmann B, Frontzek F, et al. Central nervous system relapse in younger patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a LYSA and GLA/DSHNHL analysis. Blood Adv.2023;7:3968-3977.

79.Dunleavy K,Fanale MA,Abramson JS,et al. Dose-adjusted EPOCH-R(etoposide, presdinein, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxubicin, and rituximab) in untreated aggressive diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

with MYC rearrangement: a prospective, multicentre, single-arm phase 2 study.Lancet Haematol.2018;5:e609-e617.

8. Herrera AF, Mei M, Low L, et al. Relapsed or refractory double-expressor and double-hit lymphomas have inferior progression-free survival after autologous stem-cell transplantation. J Clin Oncol.2017;35:24-31.

81.Gaulard P, Harris NL, Pileri SA, et al. Primary mediastinal(thymic)large B-cell lymphoma. In: Swerdlow SH,Campo E, Harris NL, et al.,eds. WHO Classification of Tumours of Haematopoietic and Lymphoid Tissues.rev. 4th ed. IARC; 2017:314-316.

82.Gleeson M, Hawkes EA, Cunningham D, et al. Rituximab, cyclo-phosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisolone(R-CHOP)in the management of primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma: a subgroup analysis of the UK NCRI R-CHOP 14 versus 21 trial. Br J Haematol.2016;175:668-672.

83.Melani C, Advani R, Roschewski M, et al. End-of-treatment and serial PET imaging in primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma follow-ing dose-adjusted EPOCH-R: a paradigm shift in clinical decision making.Haematologica.2018;103:1337-1344.

84.Camus V,Rossi C,Sesques P,et al. Outcomes after first-line im-munochemotherapy for primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma: a LYSA study. Blood Adv.2021;5:3862-3872.

85. Martelli M, Ceriani L, Ciccone G,et al. Omission of radiotherapy in primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma: IELSG37 trial results. J Clin Oncol.2024;42:4071-4083.

86.Renaud L, Donzel M, Decroocq J, et al. Primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma(PMBCL): the LYSA pragmatic guidelines. Eur J Cancer.2025;20:115369.

87.Camus V, Viennoi M, Viailly PJ, et al. Identification of primary mediastinal B-cell lymphomas with higher clonal dominance and poorer outcome using 5'RACE. Blood Adv.2025;9:101-115.

88. Galtier J, Mesguich C, Sesques P,et al. Outcome of patients with relapsed or refractory primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma treated with anti-CD19 CA-R-T cells: CARTHYM, a study from the French national DSCAR-T registry.Hemasphere.2025;9(2):e70091.

89.Zucca E, Conconi A, Mughal TI, et al. Patterns of outcome and prognostic factors in primary large-cell lymphoma of the testis in a survey by the International Extranodal Lymphoma Study Group.J Clin Oncol.2003;21:20-27.

90.Gundrum JD, Mathiason MA, Moore DB, Go RS. Primary testular diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a population-based study on the incidence, natural history, and survival comparison with primary nodal counterpart before and after the introduction of rituximab.J Clin Oncol.2009;27:5227-5232.

9. Vitolo U, Chiappella A, Ferreri AJM, et al. First-line treatment for primary testicular diffuse large B-cell lymphoma with rituximab-CHOP,CNS prophylaxis, and contralateral test irradiation: final results of an international phase II trial. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2766-2772.

92.Conconi A, Chiappella A, Ferreri AJM, et al. IELSG30 phase 2 trial:intravenous and intrathecal CNS prophylaxis in primary testicular diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Blood Adv.2024;8:1541-1549.

93.Ferreri AJM,Campo E,Seymour JF,et al.Intravascular lymphoma:clinical presentation, natural history, management and prognostic factors in a series of 38 cases, with special emphasis on the“cu-taneous variant". Br J Haematol. 2004;127:173-183.

94. Ferrari AJM, Dognini GP, Bairey O, et al. The addition of rituximab to anthracycline-based chemotherapy significantly improves out-come in"Western" patients with intravascular large B-cell lym-phoma. Br J Haematol. 2008;143:253-257.

95.Shimada K, Matsue K, Yamamoto K, et al. Retrospective analysis of intravascular large B-cell lymphoma treated with rituximab-containing chemotherapy as reported by the IVL study group in Japan.J Clin Oncol.2008;26:3189-3195.

96. Merli F, Luminari S, Tucci A, et al. Simplified geriatric assessment in older patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: the prospective

$$\text{ HemaSphere}$$

17 of 19

elderly project of the Fondazione Italianlina Linfomi. J Clin Oncol.2021;39:1214-1222.

97. Peyrade F, Jardin F, Thieblemont C, et al. Attenuated im-munochemotherapy regimen(R-miniCHOP) in elderly patients older than 80 years with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a mul-ticentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:460-468.

98.Pfreundschuh M, Trümper L, Kloess M, et al. Two-weekly or 3-weekly CHOP chemotherapy with or without etoposide for the treatment of young patients with good-prognosis(normal LDH)aggressive lymphomas: results of the NHL-B1 trial of the DSHNHL.Blood.2004;104:626-633.

99. Peyrade F, Bologna S, Delwail V, et al. Combination of ofatu-mumab and reduced-dose CHOP for diffuse large B-cell lym-phomas in patients aged 80 years or older: an open-label,multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial from the LYSA group.Lancet Haematol. 2017;4:e46-e55.

100. Oberic L, Peyrade F, Puyade M, et al. Subcutaneous rituximab-miniCHOP compared with subcutaneous rituximab-miniCHOP plus lenalidomide in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma for patients age 80 years or older. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:1203-1213.

101.Fields PA, Townsend W, Webb A, et al. De novo treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma with rituximab,cyclophosphamide,vincristine, gemcitabine, and prednisolene in patients with cardiac comorbidity. a United Kingdom National Cancer Research Institute trial.J Clin Oncol.2014;32:282-287.

102.Luminari S, Viel E, Ferrier AJM, et al. Nonpegylated liposomal doxorubicin combination regimen in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and cardiac comorbidity. Results of the HEART01 phase ll trial conducted by the Fondazione Italianlina. Hematol Oncol.2018;36:68-75.

103.Shen QD,Zhu HY,Wang L,et al.Gematicabene-axilopatin plus ri-tuximab(R-GemOx) as first-line treatment in elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a single-arm, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Haematol.2018;5:261-e269.

104. Moccia AA, Schaff K, Freeman C, et al. Long-term outcomes of R-CEOP show curative potential in patients with DLBCL and a contraindication to anthracyclines. Blood Adv. 2021;5:1483-1489.

105.Arcari A, Rigacci L, Tucci A, et al. A Fondazione Italiana Linfomi cohort study of R-COMP vs R-CHP in older patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Blood Adv.2023;7:4160-4169.

106.Booth S, Plaschkes H, Kirkwood AA, et al. Fractures are common within 18 months following first-line R-CHOP in older patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Blood Adv. 2020;4:4337-4346.

107. Bock AM, Mwangi R, Wang Y, et al. Defining primary refractory large B-cell lymphoma. Blood Adv.2024;8:3402:3415.

108.Maurer Jakobsen LH,Mwang Ri,et al. Relapsed/refactory International Prognostic Index(R-RPI-I): an international prognostic calculator for relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Am J Hematol. 2021;96:599-605.

109. Berger T, Geiger KR, Yeshurun M, et al. Repeat biopsy in re-lapsed or refractory diffuse large B cell lymphoma: a nationwide survey and retrospective study. Leuk Lymphoma. 2022;63:2461-2468.

110.Locke FL,Miklos DB,Jacobson CA,et al. Axicabtagene colicelue as second-line therapy for large B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med.2022;386:640-654.

111.Bishop MR, Dickinson M, Purtill D, et al. Second-line tisagenle-cleucel or standard care in aggressive B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med.2022;386:629-639.

112.Kamdar,Molson SR,Amason J,et al. Lisoctabagene maroleuc versus standard of care with salvage chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation as second-line treatment in patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma

(TRANSFORM): results from an interim analysis of an open-label,randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2022;399:2294-2308.

113. Westin JR, Oluwole OO, Kersten MJ, et al. Survival with ax-icabtagene coliulere in large B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med.2023;389:148-157.

114.Abramson JS, Solmon SR, Arnason J, et al. Lisocabtagene maraleucel as second-line therapy for large B-cell lymphoma: primary analysis of the phase 3 TRANSFORM study. Blood. 2023;141:1675-1684.

115. Houot R,Bachy E,Carron G,et al. Axicabtagene ciloleuc as second-line therapy in large B cell lymphoma in eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation: a phase 2 trial. Nat Med. 2023;29:2593-2601.

116.Sehgal A, Hoda D, Riedell PA, et al. Lisocabtagene maraleucel as second-line therapy in adults with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma who were not intended for haematopoietic stem cell transplantation(PILOT): an open-label, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol.2022:23:1066-1077.

117. Gisselbrecht C, Glass B, Mounier N, et al. Salvage regimens with autologous transplantation for relapsed large B-cell lymphoma in the rituximab era. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:4184-4190.

118. Crump M,Kuruvilla J,Couban S,et al.Randomized comparison of gemcitabine, dexamethasone, and cisplatin versus dex-amethasone, cytarabine, and cisplatin chemotherapy before au-tologous stem-cell transplantation for relapsed and refractory aggressive lymphomas: NCIC-CTG LY.12. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:3490-3496.

19.Robinson SP, Boumendil A, Finel H, et al. High-dose therapy with BEAC conditioning compared to BEAM conditioning prior to auto-logous stem cell transplantation for non-Hodgkin lymphoma: no dif-ferences in toxicity or outcome. A matched-control study of the EBTM-Lymphoma Working Party. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2018;53:1553-1559.

120. Keil F, Müller AMS, Berghold A, et al. BendaEAM versus BEAM as conditioning regimen for ASCT in patients with relapsed lymphoma(BEB): a multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial. EClinicalMedific.2023:66:102318.

121.Benedetti E, Travelo G, Pucci G, et al. Prospective study on the impact of BEAM versus FEAM conditioning on occurrence of neutropenic enterocollitis and on transplant outcome in lymphoma patients.Front Onol.2024;14:1369601.

122. Nastouplil LJ, Jain MD,Feng L,et al.Standard-of-care axicabtagene,ciloleucel for relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma: results from the US Lymphoma CAR T Consortium.J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:3119-3128.

123.Kwon M,lacboni G, Reguera JL, et al. Axicabtagene cileulocel compared to tisagenleclucel for the treatment of aggressive B-cell lymphoma. Haematologica.2023;108:110-121.

124.Roddie C, Neil I, Osborne W, et al. Effective bridging therapy can improve CD19 CAR-T outcomes while maintaining safety in pa-tients with large B-cell lymphoma. Blood Adv. 2023;7:2872-2883.

125.Vercellino L, Di Blasi R, Kanoun S, et al. Predictive factors of early progression after CAR T-cell therapy in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Blood Adv.2020;4:5607-5615.

126.Bethge WA, Matus P, Schmitt M, et al. GLA/DRST real-world outcome analysis of CAR T-cell therapies for large B-cell lymphoma in Germany. Blood.2022;140:349-358.

127.Mounier N,El Gnaoui T,Tilly H,et al. Rituximab plus gemcitabine and oxalilatin in patients with refractory/relapsed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma who are not candidates for high-dose therapy. A phase II Lymphoma Study Association trial. Haematologica.2013;98:1726-1731.

128.Sales G, Duell J, Gonzalez Barca E, et al. Tafasitamab plus lenali-domine in relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma(L-MIND): a multicentre, prospective, single-arm, phase 2 study.Lancet Oncol.2020;21:978-988.

129. Duell J, Maddocks KJ, Gonzalez-Barca E,et al. Long-term outcomes from the Phase II L-MIND study of tafasitamab(MOR208) plus

18 of 19

lenalidomide in patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Hematologica.2021;106:2417-2426.

130.Duell J, Abrisqueta P, Andre M, et al. Tafastabim for patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: final v-510 efficacy and safety findings in the phase II L-MIND study.Haematologica.2024;109:553-566.

131.Qualls DA, Lambert N, Caimi PF, et al. Tafasitabam and lenalido-mide in large B-cell lymphoma: real-world outcomes in a multi-center retrospective study. Blood.2023;142:2327-2331.

132.Sehn LH, Hertzberg M, Opat S, et al. Polatuzumab vedotin plus bendamustine and rituximab in relapsed/refractory DLBCL: survival update and new extension cohort data. Blood Adv.2022;6:533-543.

133.Abramson JS,Ku M, Hertzberg M, et al. Gutifamab plus gemcitabine and oxaliplatin(GemOx) versus rituximab-GemOx for relapsed or re-fractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma(STARGLO): a global phase 3,randomised, open-label trial. Lancet 2024:404:1940-1954.

134. Brody JD,Jargensen J,Belada D,et al.Epcoritabas plus GemOx in transplant-ineligible relapsed/refractory DLBCL; results from the EPCORE NHL-2 trial. Blood.2025;145:1621-1631.

135 Neelapu SS, Locke FL, Bartlett NL, et al. Axicatagenele colleuceler CAR T-cell therapy in refractory large B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med.2017;377:2531-2544.

136. Schuster SJ, Bishop MR,Tam CS,et al.Tisageneleleculose in relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med.2019;380:45-56.

137.Abramson JS, Palomba ML, Gordon LI, et al. Lisocabtagene mar-aleulec for patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lym-phomas(TRANSCEND NH 001): a multicentre seamless design study.Lancet.2020;396:839-852.

138.Schuster SJ,Tam CS,Borchmann P,et al. Long-term clinical outcomes of istagenleculeuc in patients with relapsed or re-fractory aggressive B-cell lymphomas(JUULIET): a multicentre,open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22:1403-1415.

139.Abramson JS, Palomba ML, Gordon LI,et al.Two-year follow-up of isoclabagene maruleel in relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma in TRANSCEND NHL 001. Blood. 2024;143:404-416.

140.Neelapu S, Jacobson CA, Ghobadi A, et al. Five-year follow-up of ZUMA-1 supports the curative potential of axicabtagene coliculee in refractory large B-cell lymphoma. Blood 2023;141:2307-2315.

141.Sermer D,Batlevi C, Palomba ML,et al. Outcomes in patients with DLBCL treated with commercial CART T cells compared with alter-nate therapies. Blood Adv.2020;4:4669-4678.

142.Bastos-Oreiro M, Gutierrez A, Reguera JL, et al. Best treatment option for patients with refractory aggressive B-cell lymphoma in the CAR-T cell era: real-world evidence from GELTAMO/GET Spanish groups. Front Immunol. 2022;13:855730.

143.Bachy E,Le Guill S, Di Blasi R, et al. A real-world comparison of tisagenlelecue and acixatageneleculide CLET in cells relapsed or refractory diffuse large B cell lymphoma. Nat Med.2022;28:2145-2154.

144.Spanjaart AM, Pennings ERA, Mutsaers PGNJ, et al. The Dutch CAR-T Tumorboard experience: population-based real-world data on patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma re-$$\text{ Cancers. 2023;15:4334}$$

145.Crombie JL,Nastoupiu LJ,Andreadis C,et al. Multicenter, real-world study in patients with R/R large B-cell lymphoma(LBCL) who re-ceived lisocabtagene maraleine(lil-cel) in the United States(US).Blood.2023;142:104.

146.Dickinson MJ,Carlo-Stella C,Morschhauser F,et al. Glofmitab for relapsed or refractory diffuse large B cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med.2022;387:2220-2231.

147.Thieblemont C, Phillips T, Ghesieres H, et al. Epcitamab, a novel,subcutaneous 3D5xCD20 bispecific T-cell-engaging antibody, in

relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma: dose expansion in a phase l/II Trial.J Clin Oncol. 2023;41:2238-2247.

148. Kim WS, Kim TM, Cho SG, et al. Odronextamab monotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B cell lymphoma:primary efficacy and safety analysis in phase 2 ELM-2 trial. Nat Cancer.2025;6:528-539.

149.Caimi PF,Ai W,Alderuccio JP,et al. Loncastumab tesirine in re-lapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma(LOTIS-2): a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol.2021;22:790-800.

15.Maddox JM,Horan M,Tafesh L,Shrubsole C,Osborne W.DECC(dexamethasone, etoposide, chlorambicul, lomustine) as an oral chemotherapy regimen in relapsed and refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Et J Haematol. 2021;192:e92-e94.

151.Maybury B, Kimpton G, Otton S. A retrospective multicentre study of COCKLE, an oral chemotherapy regimen, as palliative treatment for high grade lymphoma. Br J Haematol. 2019;185:803-806.

15. Bulley SJ, Santarsieri A, Lentell IC, et al. Managing relapsed re-fractory lymphoma with palliative oral chemotherapy: A multi-centre retrospective study. EJHaem. 2022;3:1316-1320.

153.Fante MA, Felsenstein M, Mayer S, et al. All-Oral Low-Dose Che-motherapy TEPIP is effective and well-tolerated in relapsed/re-fractory patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma. Front Oncol.2022;12:852987.

154. Maurer MJ, Ghescières H, Jais JP, et al. Event-free survival at 24 months is a robust end point for disease-related outcome in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with immunochemotherapy.J Clin Oncol.2014;32:1066-1073.

155.Casasnovas RO,Meignan M,Berriolo-Riedinger A,et al.SUVmax reduction improves early prognosis value of interim positron emission tomography scans in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Blood.2011;118:37-43.

156.Thompson CA,Ghesquieres H, Maurer MJ,et al. Utility of routine post-therapy surveillance imaging in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.J Clin Oncol.2014;32:3506-3512.

157.El-Galaly TC,Jakobsen LH, Hutchings M,et al. Routine imaging for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in first complete remission does not improve post-treatment survival: a Danish-Swedish population-based study.J Clin Oncol.2015;33:3993-3998.

158. Wai SH, Lee ST,Cliff ERS,et al. Utility of FDG-PET in predicting the histology of relapsed or refractory lymphoma. Blood Adv. 2024;8:736-745.

159. Maraldo MV,Giusti F, Vogelius IR,et al. Cardiovascular disease after treatment for Hodgkin's lymphoma: an analysis of nine collaborative EORTC-LYSA trials. Lancet Haematol.2015;2:e492-e502.

160.Pugh TJ,Ballonlof A, Rusthoven KE,et al. Cardiac mortality in patients with stage I and II diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with and without radiation: a surveillance, epidemiology, and end-results analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010;76:845-849.

161.Mounier N,Anthony S, Busson R,et al. Long-term fatigue in survivors of non-Hodgkin lymphoma: The Lymphoma Study Association Sl-MONAL cross-sectional study. Cancer.2019;125:2291-2299.

162.Ojbindra Ke,Cliethi M, Herdman E,et al. Exercise interventions and physical activity in adults living with and beyond blood cancer: a scoping review.J Cancer Surv. Published online May 7,2025.doi:10.1007/s11764-025-01822-4

163.Ng AK, Garber JE, Diller LR, et al. Prospective study of the efficacy of breast magnetic resonance imaging and mammographic screening in survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:2822-2288.

164. Dykewicz CA. Summary of the guidelines for preventing opportu-nistic infections among hematopoietic stem cell transplant re-cipients. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;33(2):139-144.

HemaSphere

19 of 19

APPENDIX

TABLE A1 Levels of evidence and grades of recommendation(adapted from the Infectious Diseases Society of America-United States Public Health Service Grading System).164

Levels of evidence

1 Evidence from at least one large randomized, controlled trial of good methodological quality(low potential for bias) or meta-analyses of well-conducted randomized trials without heterogeneity

II Small randomized trials or large randomized trials with a suspicion of bias(lower methodological quality) or meta-analyses of such trials or of trials with demonstrated heterogeneity

Ⅲ Prospective cohort studies

IV Retrospective cohort studies or case-control studies

Ⅴ Studies without control group, case reports, and experts' opinions

Grades of recommendation

A Strong evidence for efficacy with a substantial clinical benefit, strongly recommended

B Strong or moderate evidence for efficacy but with a limited clinical benefit, generally recommended

C Insufficient evidence for efficacy or benefit does not outweigh the risk or the disadvantages(adverse events, costs, etc.), optional

D Moderate evidence against efficacy or for adverse outcome, generally not recommended

E Strong evidence against efficacy or for adverse outcome, never recommended

相关指南

• （2026.V1）NCCN临床实践指南：老年肿瘤 · 肿瘤内科 2026
• 2025 JORL-HNS临床实践指南：嗅觉功能障碍的管理（概要） · 五官科 2025
• （2025.V3）NCCN临床实践指南：中枢神经系统肿瘤 · 综合与多学科 2025
• 高血压患者靶器官动态评估与长程管理专家共识 · 心血管内科
• 老年人内在能力筛查与综合评估中国专家共识 · 公共卫生与预防
• 中国老年高血压管理指南2023 · 心血管内科 2023
• 人工智能在增龄相关衰弱患者康复中的应用专家共识 · 康复与精神
• 中国老年2型糖尿病防治临床指南（2026年版） · 综合与多学科 2026