CAR-T细胞治疗临床试验的临床前模型的预测价值:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 10.3 1区 医学 Q1 IMMUNOLOGY
David Andreu-Sanz, Lisa Gregor, Emanuele Carlini, Daniele Scarcella, Carsten Marr, Sebastian Kobold
{"title":"CAR-T细胞治疗临床试验的临床前模型的预测价值:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"David Andreu-Sanz, Lisa Gregor, Emanuele Carlini, Daniele Scarcella, Carsten Marr, Sebastian Kobold","doi":"10.1136/jitc-2025-011698","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background</b> Experimental mouse models are indispensable for the preclinical development of cancer immunotherapies, whereby complex interactions in the tumor microenvironment can be somewhat replicated. Despite the availability of diverse models, their predictive capacity for clinical outcomes remains largely unknown, posing a hurdle in the translation from preclinical to clinical success. <b>Methods</b> This study systematically reviews and meta-analyzes clinical trials of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell monotherapies with their corresponding preclinical studies. Adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a comprehensive search of PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted, identifying 422 clinical trials and 3,157 preclinical studies. From these, 105 clinical trials and 180 preclinical studies, accounting for 44 and 131 distinct CAR constructs, respectively, were included. <b>Results</b> Patients' responses varied based on the target antigen, expectedly with higher efficacy and toxicity rates in hematological cancers. Preclinical data analysis revealed homogeneous and antigen-independent efficacy rates. Our analysis revealed that only 4% (n=12) of mouse studies used syngeneic models, highlighting their scarcity in research. Three logistic regression models were trained on CAR structures, tumor entities, and experimental settings to predict treatment outcomes. While the logistic regression model accurately predicted clinical outcomes based on clinical or preclinical features (Macro F1 and area under the curve (AUC)>0.8), it failed in predicting preclinical outcomes from preclinical features (Macro F1<0.5, AUC<0.6), indicating that preclinical studies may be influenced by experimental factors not accounted for in the model. <b>Conclusion</b> These findings underscore the need to better understand the experimental factors enhancing the predictive accuracy of mouse models in preclinical settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":14820,"journal":{"name":"Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer","volume":"13 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12164627/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Predictive value of preclinical models for CAR-T cell therapy clinical trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"David Andreu-Sanz, Lisa Gregor, Emanuele Carlini, Daniele Scarcella, Carsten Marr, Sebastian Kobold\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/jitc-2025-011698\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background</b> Experimental mouse models are indispensable for the preclinical development of cancer immunotherapies, whereby complex interactions in the tumor microenvironment can be somewhat replicated. Despite the availability of diverse models, their predictive capacity for clinical outcomes remains largely unknown, posing a hurdle in the translation from preclinical to clinical success. <b>Methods</b> This study systematically reviews and meta-analyzes clinical trials of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell monotherapies with their corresponding preclinical studies. Adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a comprehensive search of PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted, identifying 422 clinical trials and 3,157 preclinical studies. From these, 105 clinical trials and 180 preclinical studies, accounting for 44 and 131 distinct CAR constructs, respectively, were included. <b>Results</b> Patients' responses varied based on the target antigen, expectedly with higher efficacy and toxicity rates in hematological cancers. Preclinical data analysis revealed homogeneous and antigen-independent efficacy rates. Our analysis revealed that only 4% (n=12) of mouse studies used syngeneic models, highlighting their scarcity in research. Three logistic regression models were trained on CAR structures, tumor entities, and experimental settings to predict treatment outcomes. While the logistic regression model accurately predicted clinical outcomes based on clinical or preclinical features (Macro F1 and area under the curve (AUC)>0.8), it failed in predicting preclinical outcomes from preclinical features (Macro F1<0.5, AUC<0.6), indicating that preclinical studies may be influenced by experimental factors not accounted for in the model. <b>Conclusion</b> These findings underscore the need to better understand the experimental factors enhancing the predictive accuracy of mouse models in preclinical settings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14820,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer\",\"volume\":\"13 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12164627/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/jitc-2025-011698\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"IMMUNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jitc-2025-011698","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"IMMUNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

实验小鼠模型对于癌症免疫疗法的临床前开发是必不可少的,因此肿瘤微环境中的复杂相互作用可以在一定程度上复制。尽管有多种可用的模型,但它们对临床结果的预测能力在很大程度上仍然未知,这对从临床前到临床成功的转化构成了障碍。方法系统回顾和荟萃分析CAR -T细胞单药治疗的临床试验及其临床前研究。遵循系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目,对PubMed和ClinicalTrials.gov进行了全面搜索,确定了422项临床试验和3157项临床前研究。其中包括105项临床试验和180项临床前研究,分别占44项和131项不同的CAR结构。结果患者对不同抗原的反应不同,预期在血液病中具有更高的疗效和毒副率。临床前数据分析显示均质和抗原无关的有效率。我们的分析显示,只有4% (n=12)的小鼠研究使用了同基因模型,这突出了它们在研究中的稀缺性。根据CAR结构、肿瘤实体和实验设置训练了三个逻辑回归模型,以预测治疗结果。logistic回归模型基于临床或临床前特征(Macro F1和曲线下面积(area under the curve, AUC)>0.8)能够准确预测临床前结果,但无法通过临床前特征预测临床前结果(Macro F1)。结论需要更好地了解提高临床前小鼠模型预测准确性的实验因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Predictive value of preclinical models for CAR-T cell therapy clinical trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background Experimental mouse models are indispensable for the preclinical development of cancer immunotherapies, whereby complex interactions in the tumor microenvironment can be somewhat replicated. Despite the availability of diverse models, their predictive capacity for clinical outcomes remains largely unknown, posing a hurdle in the translation from preclinical to clinical success. Methods This study systematically reviews and meta-analyzes clinical trials of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell monotherapies with their corresponding preclinical studies. Adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a comprehensive search of PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted, identifying 422 clinical trials and 3,157 preclinical studies. From these, 105 clinical trials and 180 preclinical studies, accounting for 44 and 131 distinct CAR constructs, respectively, were included. Results Patients' responses varied based on the target antigen, expectedly with higher efficacy and toxicity rates in hematological cancers. Preclinical data analysis revealed homogeneous and antigen-independent efficacy rates. Our analysis revealed that only 4% (n=12) of mouse studies used syngeneic models, highlighting their scarcity in research. Three logistic regression models were trained on CAR structures, tumor entities, and experimental settings to predict treatment outcomes. While the logistic regression model accurately predicted clinical outcomes based on clinical or preclinical features (Macro F1 and area under the curve (AUC)>0.8), it failed in predicting preclinical outcomes from preclinical features (Macro F1<0.5, AUC<0.6), indicating that preclinical studies may be influenced by experimental factors not accounted for in the model. Conclusion These findings underscore the need to better understand the experimental factors enhancing the predictive accuracy of mouse models in preclinical settings.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer
Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Molecular Medicine
CiteScore
17.70
自引率
4.60%
发文量
522
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer (JITC) is a peer-reviewed publication that promotes scientific exchange and deepens knowledge in the constantly evolving fields of tumor immunology and cancer immunotherapy. With an open access format, JITC encourages widespread access to its findings. The journal covers a wide range of topics, spanning from basic science to translational and clinical research. Key areas of interest include tumor-host interactions, the intricate tumor microenvironment, animal models, the identification of predictive and prognostic immune biomarkers, groundbreaking pharmaceutical and cellular therapies, innovative vaccines, combination immune-based treatments, and the study of immune-related toxicity.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信