The Cost of Dose Attenuation and Delayed Escalation in a Young Patient with High-Risk DLBCL: A Two-Layer Retrospective Computational Analysis

Résumé fourni par la source

Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) is a curable disease in young, fit patients. Cure, however, is critically dependent on two factors: maintaining dose intensity from the very first cycle, and escalating to novel therapies at the first sign of chemorefractoriness. We present a retrospective computational analysis of a 29-year-old male with Stage IVB DLBCL. The analysis quantifies the decision gaps at each stage of treatment, the biological cost of delayed escalation, and the cumulative impact of the first-line decision.A computational decision-support platform (Omnisynx) simulated the patient's journey against a library of 440 admissible combinations, gated by real-world approval dates and licensed lines. The simulation scored four arms at each decision point: ACTUAL (what was given), FEASIBLE (best local choice), IDEAL (best with import/trials), and ORACLE (full knowledge from day 0). A two-layer analysis was performed. Layer 1 evaluated the best next step at each decision point. Layer 2 simulated the entire treatment trajectory if the Layer 1 N1 recommendation had been applied from the beginning.The first-line induction (Cycles 1–3) was given at roughly half the standard dose, scoring 67/100, while the FEASIBLE arm (full-dose Pola-R-CHP) scored 90/100—a decision gap of +23.6. At refractoriness in September 2024, a written rule—"Deauville 5 → CAR-T"—was documented but not executed. Instead, four more cycles of salvage chemotherapy were given. CAR-T was finally infused in January 2025, but by then the patient had received eight cycles of chemotherapy. The complete absence of cytokine release syndrome indicated poor T-cell expansion, consistent with immune exhaustion. If the N1 recommendation had been applied, the patient would likely have achieved a complete metabolic response at first-line. The subsequent stages of refractoriness, salvage chemo, and delayed CAR-T would never have occurred.The failure in this case was not the absence of good advice. It was the failure to apply that advice at the moment it mattered most—the very first decision.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.