The PubMed record lists a multicenter, single-arm phase 2 study of ifupinostat in relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). The bibliographic citation appears in Signal Transduct Target Ther with a 2026 Oct 19 publication date, DOI 10.1038/s41392-026-02926-8 and PubMed ID 42893991. The entry affirms this is a clinical trial report rather than a case series or preclinical paper.
Investigators reported a large collaborative author list led by Yuankai Shi and Peng Liu, who contributed equally. The author group spans numerous Chinese cancer centers and clinics, including national cancer centers, university hospitals, provincial cancer hospitals, and an industry partner (BeBetter Med Inc.). The affiliations recorded on PubMed provide institutional provenance for data collection across multiple sites. Contact information for the corresponding author was listed in the PubMed entry.
The PubMed metadata explicitly labels the work as a multicenter, single-arm phase 2 clinical trial evaluating efficacy and safety in patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL. That design statement sets expectations: single-arm studies typically report response rates and safety outcomes without a randomized comparator, and phase 2 trials commonly focus on preliminary efficacy signals and toxicity characterization prior to larger confirmatory studies.
The PubMed page captured title, authors, affiliations, journal citation, DOI and PubMed identifier. It did not include the trial’s abstract text, outcome tables, numeric efficacy endpoints, dosing schedule, inclusion/exclusion criteria, sample size, or adverse-event breakdown in the provided excerpt. The source therefore documents study identity and authorship but does not provide the quantitative or methodological details necessary to judge treatment effect or safety profile.
Exact items absent from the captured PubMed content include: objective response rates (ORR), complete response (CR) rates, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), duration of response, the ifupinostat dose and administration schedule, frequency and grade of adverse events, and any biomarker or subgroup analyses. The PubMed excerpt also omits trial registration identifiers and explicit statistical methods. Those elements may be present in the full journal article but were not available in the source text provided here.
Because the PubMed excerpt lacks efficacy and safety data, clinicians and guideline committees cannot assess clinical benefit, risk, or comparative value from this record alone. The single-arm phase 2 label suggests hypothesis-generating evidence rather than definitive comparative efficacy. The multicenter nature supports broader enrollment, yet without sample size or patient baseline characteristics we cannot evaluate external validity or selection bias. The absence of dosing and toxicity details prevents practical implementation decisions and risk counseling.
The PubMed capture leaves several concrete questions unanswered that are critical for clinical appraisal and regulatory consideration: What were the trial’s primary and secondary endpoints, and were they met? What were the reported ORR, CR, PFS and OS metrics? What ifupinostat dosing regimen, dose modifications, and treatment duration were used? Which grade 3–4 or serious adverse events occurred, and what was the treatment discontinuation rate for toxicity? Were correlative biomarker analyses reported to define responsive subgroups? Is there a trial registration number and are full protocols or supplementary data available?
Readers who require clinical details should retrieve the full article via the DOI or journal site and review the abstract, methods, results and supplemental files. The PubMed entry defines the study and provenance but does not allow evidence-based conclusions about the efficacy or safety of ifupinostat in relapsed/refractory DLBCL. The most immediate limitation documented here is the absence of primary outcome data in the captured source; resolving that gap requires consulting the published manuscript.
Limitations noted in this summary reflect only the content available on the PubMed page excerpt. This article ends on those practical gaps and on the requirement that clinicians refer to the full text for numeric results, toxicity profiles, and protocol specifics needed to interpret clinical impact.