Jaromir Tomasik, Dominik Bilicki, Grzegorz Władysław Basak
{"title":"大 B 细胞淋巴瘤患者 CAR-T 疗法失败后一线挽救治疗反应率的 Meta 分析。","authors":"Jaromir Tomasik, Dominik Bilicki, Grzegorz Władysław Basak","doi":"10.1080/14712598.2024.2354371","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The prognosis for large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) patients who did not respond or relapsed after chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T therapy remains dismal, with no established consensus on the most effective salvage regimen.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis of complete response (CR) and overall response rates (ORR) to first-line treatments for CAR-T-relapsed/refractory LBCL. We followed the predefined protocol available at PROSPERO (CRD42023473854).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 41 studies evaluating the following interventions: non-CD19 CAR-T, CD19 CAR-T, bispecific antibodies (BiTEs), lenalidomide- and polatuzumab-based regimens, radiotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase inhibitors (BTKi). Non-CD19 CAR-T cells yielded the best CR (56%, CI: 40-71%), significantly higher than other interventions except CD19 CAR-T (CR = 30%, CI: 7-58%). BiTEs, radiotherapy, lenalidomide- and polatuzumab-based regimens (CR: 28%, 26%, 19%, 24% respectively) did not differ significantly from each other. ICI and BTKi showed the lowest CR rates (12%, CI: 5-20% and 8%, CI: 0-23%, respectively), and were also significantly inferior to BiTEs. ORR was the highest for non-CD19 CAR-T (ORR = 80%, CI: 66-92%), whereas all other regimens yielded values below 50%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Non-CD19 CAR-T cells were associated with higher response rates and should be considered if patients are eligible. Given the heterogeneity of the estimates, the results should be interpreted cautiously.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42023473854.</p>","PeriodicalId":12084,"journal":{"name":"Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Meta-analysis of response rates to first-line salvage treatment after CAR-T therapy failure in large B-cell lymphoma patients.\",\"authors\":\"Jaromir Tomasik, Dominik Bilicki, Grzegorz Władysław Basak\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14712598.2024.2354371\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The prognosis for large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) patients who did not respond or relapsed after chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T therapy remains dismal, with no established consensus on the most effective salvage regimen.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis of complete response (CR) and overall response rates (ORR) to first-line treatments for CAR-T-relapsed/refractory LBCL. We followed the predefined protocol available at PROSPERO (CRD42023473854).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 41 studies evaluating the following interventions: non-CD19 CAR-T, CD19 CAR-T, bispecific antibodies (BiTEs), lenalidomide- and polatuzumab-based regimens, radiotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase inhibitors (BTKi). Non-CD19 CAR-T cells yielded the best CR (56%, CI: 40-71%), significantly higher than other interventions except CD19 CAR-T (CR = 30%, CI: 7-58%). BiTEs, radiotherapy, lenalidomide- and polatuzumab-based regimens (CR: 28%, 26%, 19%, 24% respectively) did not differ significantly from each other. ICI and BTKi showed the lowest CR rates (12%, CI: 5-20% and 8%, CI: 0-23%, respectively), and were also significantly inferior to BiTEs. ORR was the highest for non-CD19 CAR-T (ORR = 80%, CI: 66-92%), whereas all other regimens yielded values below 50%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Non-CD19 CAR-T cells were associated with higher response rates and should be considered if patients are eligible. Given the heterogeneity of the estimates, the results should be interpreted cautiously.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42023473854.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12084,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14712598.2024.2354371\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14712598.2024.2354371","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Meta-analysis of response rates to first-line salvage treatment after CAR-T therapy failure in large B-cell lymphoma patients.
Introduction: The prognosis for large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) patients who did not respond or relapsed after chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T therapy remains dismal, with no established consensus on the most effective salvage regimen.
Methods: We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis of complete response (CR) and overall response rates (ORR) to first-line treatments for CAR-T-relapsed/refractory LBCL. We followed the predefined protocol available at PROSPERO (CRD42023473854).
Results: We identified 41 studies evaluating the following interventions: non-CD19 CAR-T, CD19 CAR-T, bispecific antibodies (BiTEs), lenalidomide- and polatuzumab-based regimens, radiotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase inhibitors (BTKi). Non-CD19 CAR-T cells yielded the best CR (56%, CI: 40-71%), significantly higher than other interventions except CD19 CAR-T (CR = 30%, CI: 7-58%). BiTEs, radiotherapy, lenalidomide- and polatuzumab-based regimens (CR: 28%, 26%, 19%, 24% respectively) did not differ significantly from each other. ICI and BTKi showed the lowest CR rates (12%, CI: 5-20% and 8%, CI: 0-23%, respectively), and were also significantly inferior to BiTEs. ORR was the highest for non-CD19 CAR-T (ORR = 80%, CI: 66-92%), whereas all other regimens yielded values below 50%.
Conclusions: Non-CD19 CAR-T cells were associated with higher response rates and should be considered if patients are eligible. Given the heterogeneity of the estimates, the results should be interpreted cautiously.
期刊介绍:
Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy (1471-2598; 1744-7682) is a MEDLINE-indexed, international journal publishing peer-reviewed research across all aspects of biological therapy.
Each article is structured to incorporate the author’s own expert opinion on the impact of the topic on research and clinical practice and the scope for future development.
The audience consists of scientists and managers in the healthcare and biopharmaceutical industries and others closely involved in the development and application of biological therapies for the treatment of human disease.
The journal welcomes:
Reviews covering therapeutic antibodies and vaccines, peptides and proteins, gene therapies and gene transfer technologies, cell-based therapies and regenerative medicine
Drug evaluations reviewing the clinical data on a particular biological agent
Original research papers reporting the results of clinical investigations on biological agents and biotherapeutic-based studies with a strong link to clinical practice
Comprehensive coverage in each review is complemented by the unique Expert Collection format and includes the following sections:
Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results;
Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.