Contents

Diffuse Large B Cell LymphomaEdit

Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) is the most common form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and an aggressive cancer arising from mature B lymphocytes. It typically presents as a rapidly enlarging lymph node or a mass in an extranodal site, and it can involve nodal and extranodal regions alike. With modern treatment, including rituximab-based regimens, a substantial fraction of patients achieve long-term remission or cure. The disease is biologically heterogeneous, with at least two major molecular subtypes that influence prognosis and treatment choices: germinal center B-cell-like (GCB) and activated B-cell-like (ABC). DLBCL sits at the intersection of oncology and health policy, because survival advances have depended not only on medical innovation but also on access to care, affordability of medicines, and the organization of health systems that pay for high-cost therapies non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The clinical landscape for DLBCL has evolved rapidly over the past two decades. The backbone of first-line therapy for most patients remains a rituximab-containing chemotherapy regimen, most often R-CHOP, which combines rituximab with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone. The overall goal is cure in a disease that, while aggressive, is often curable when treated promptly and appropriately. Molecular subtyping into GCB and ABC informs prognosis and, in some cases, guides consideration of alternative regimens or inclusion in clinical trials. In relapsed or refractory disease, cellular therapies such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy and other targeted agents have expanded options beyond traditional chemotherapy and radiation R-CHOP rituximab car-t cell therapy.

Overview

Epidemiology and risk factors

DLBCL occurs across adult age groups but is most common in middle-aged and older adults. Risk is not evenly distributed by geography or race, and factors such as immune suppression, prior lymphoma treatment, and certain autoimmune conditions can influence risk. Exposure history, infections, and genetic predispositions contribute to risk, but most cases arise without a single identifiable cause. The disease is a cancer of the immune system, and its incidence reflects the interplay between biology, aging, and broader health determinants. For a broader view of lymphoid cancers, see extranodal lymphoma and Ann Arbor staging system as part of standard diagnostic frameworks.

Pathophysiology

DLBCL develops when B cells acquire genetic alterations that disrupt normal differentiation and promote uncontrolled growth. The disease is not uniform at the molecular level; the GCB and ABC subtypes reflect different cell-of-origin programs and signaling dependencies, which in turn influence responsiveness to therapy. Genetic changes frequently involve pathways controlling B-cell receptor signaling, NF-κB activation, and apoptosis, with particular patterns correlating with prognosis. Advances in molecular profiling have refined risk stratification and are guiding ongoing research into targeted approaches and personalized regimens. For those seeking the molecular landscape, see germinal center B-cell-like diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and activated B-cell-like diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

Clinical features

DLBCL often presents with a rapidly enlarging, non-tender mass, most commonly in a lymph node but frequently in extranodal sites such as the stomach, central nervous system, testes, or skin. Constitutional symptoms—fever, night sweats, and weight loss—may occur (B symptoms) but are not universal. Because the disease grows quickly, timely recognition and biopsy are important. Staging workups typically include imaging (often PET-CT) and a biopsy to establish histology and immunophenotype, along with laboratory assessments for organ function and disease burden. A thorough physical exam and review of systems help identify potential extranodal involvement.

Diagnosis and staging

  • Biopsy: The definitive diagnosis rests on histopathology with immunophenotyping; DLBCL shows large, abnormal B cells that express B-cell markers such as CD20.
  • Immunophenotype and genetics: Immunohistochemistry and genetic studies classify subtypes (GCB vs ABC) and identify prognostic markers.
  • Imaging: PET-CT is commonly used for staging and response assessment; CT or MRI may be used in specific situations.
  • Staging: Most patients are staged with the Ann Arbor system, often supplemented by prognostic indices like the International Prognostic Index (IPI), which incorporates age, stage, serum LDH, performance status, and extranodal involvement to estimate risk.
  • Extranodal disease: Involvement outside lymph nodes is common and influences treatment planning and prognosis. For more on staging and prognosis, see Ann Arbor staging system and International Prognostic Index.

Treatment and management

  • First-line therapy: The standard of care for most patients is a rituximab-containing chemoimmunotherapy regimen, most commonly R-CHOP, given in cycles every few weeks for several months. The regimen has become a benchmark due to durable remissions in many patients. Some patients with very favorable features or specific clinical contexts may receive alternative regimens or de-escalation, but R-CHOP remains the baseline reference point. See R-CHOP and rituximab for details.
  • Central nervous system prophylaxis: In selected cases with high risk of CNS involvement, prophylactic strategies may be discussed, though routine CNS-directed therapy is not standard for all patients.

  • Response assessment: After completing initial therapy, response is assessed by imaging and clinical evaluation. Negative prognostic factors guide subsequent planning.

  • Relapsed or refractory disease: For patients whose disease returns after initial response or who do not respond to frontline therapy, options expand beyond conventional chemotherapy. This stage often involves clinical trials and a sequence of therapies designed to control disease and maintain quality of life. Part of the newer landscape includes antibody-drug conjugates such as polatuzumab vedotin and newer monoclonal or bispecific approaches, as well as cellular therapies.

    • CAR-T cell therapy: In eligible patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL after at least two prior lines of therapy, CAR-T options have become a major advance. Approved products include axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel), tisagenlecleucel (tisagenlecleucel), and brexucabtagene autoleucel (brexucabtagene autoleucel).
    • Antibody-drug conjugates and other targeted agents: Polatuzumab vedotin combined with rituximab and bendamustine (Pola-BR) and loncastuximab tesirine are examples of agents used in relapsed disease, sometimes in combination regimens or after CAR-T therapy failure.
    • Autologous stem cell transplantation: In selected younger or fit patients who achieve remission after salvage therapy, high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation can offer long-term disease control. See autologous stem cell transplantation.

  • Radiation therapy: Radiation remains a useful tool for select patients, such as those with localized bulky disease or residual masses after systemic therapy, to improve local control and potentially reduce relapse risk.

  • Supportive care and monitoring: Management includes infection prophylaxis, treatment of cytopenias, and monitoring for treatment-related toxicities, including cardiac and neurological effects. Long-term follow-up focuses on recurrence surveillance and secondary cancer risks, as well as cardiovascular health given therapy-related risks. See chemotherapy and radiation therapy for related considerations.

Prognosis

Prognosis in DLBCL varies with age, performance status, stage, and biology. The International Prognostic Index (IPI) remains a widely used tool to estimate risk at diagnosis. Younger patients with limited-stage disease generally have the best outcomes, while older individuals or those with adverse molecular features tend to have lower cure rates and higher relapse risk. The advent of targeted therapies and CAR-T cell therapy has improved outcomes for patients with relapsed or refractory disease and has begun to shift the overall prognosis for many, though access to these therapies and their costs are integral to real-world results. See overall survival and progression-free survival for definitions and discussions of outcomes.

Controversies and debates

  • Cost and access to high-priced therapies: A prominent policy debate centers on the affordability of novel treatments such as CAR-T cell therapy, antibody-drug conjugates, and other targeted agents. Proponents of market-based pricing argue that high prices reflect the value of groundbreaking innovations and are necessary to sustain research and development. Critics contend that prohibitively high costs limit patient access and drive insurance premium increases. In many health systems, coverage decisions, value-based pricing, and reimbursement levels shape who can receive these therapies and under what circumstances.
  • Innovation versus affordability: The tension between delivering cutting-edge care and containing public or private health expenditures is a recurring theme. Some critics of heavy-handed regulation warn that price controls or aggressive payer policies could dampen innovation, delay new treatments, or reduce the supply of medicines. Supporters argue that smart, outcome-oriented pricing, competition among therapies, and patient-centered coverage can reconcile access with continued innovation.
  • Role of government and private sector: Debates persist about the optimal mix of public funding, private insurance, and private sector innovation to deliver high-quality cancer care. Advocates for greater private-sector efficiency emphasize streamlined pathways for approvals, speedier access to new therapies, and consumer choice, while supporters of broader public coverage emphasize universal access and predictable financing.
  • Equity versus excellence: Critics of a purely market-based approach warn that disparities in access can widen gaps in outcomes, particularly for older adults, rural populations, or underinsured patients. Proponents of targeted interventions argue that public programs should prioritize high-value therapies and outcomes, while preserving incentives for research and durable cures.
  • Woke criticism and policy debates: In public discussions around health policy, some critiques of progressive framing emphasize practical outcomes, cost containment, and personal responsibility. From a perspective that prioritizes market-based solutions, the focus is on achieving access to effective therapies through value-based pricing, transparent performance metrics, and patient autonomy, while cautioning against policy approaches perceived as driven more by ideology than by patient outcomes. The central point is that while values matter, policy should aim to maximize real-world cures, minimize waste, and keep innovative care economically sustainable.

See also