CAR-T versus bispecifieke antilichamen als derdelijns bij LBCL: meta-analyse
Vergelijking van celtherapie en bispecifieken bij LBCL.
Abstract (original)
This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy and bispecific antibodies for relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL). We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases until July 2023 for trials assessing CAR T-cell therapies and CD20×CD3 bispecific antibodies as third or subsequent lines in R/R DLBCL. Random-effects models estimated the complete response (CR) rate and secondary outcomes, with meta-regressions adjusting for relevant covariates. Sixteen studies comprising 1347 patients were included in the pooled analysis. The pooled CR rate for bispecific antibodies was 0.36 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29-0.43), compared with 0.51 (95% CI, 0.46-0.56) for CAR T-cell therapy (P < .01). This superiority persisted when comparing the CAR T-cell-naive patients within the bispecific antibody group, with a CR rate of 0.37 (95% CI, 0.32-0.43). Multivariable meta-regression also revealed better efficacy of CAR T cells with adjustment for the proportion of double-hit lymphoma. The pooled 1-year progression-free survival rate mirrored these findings (0.32 [95% CI, 0.26-0.38] vs 0.44 [95% CI, 0.41-0.48]; P < .01). For adverse events of grade ≥3, the bispecific antibody had incidences of 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01-0.04) for cytokine release syndrome, 0.01 (95% CI, 0.00-0.01) for neurotoxicity, and 0.10 (95% CI, 0.03-0.16) for infections. The CAR T cell had rates of 0.08 (95% CI, 0.03-0.12), 0.11 (95% CI, 0.06-0.17), and 0.17 (95% CI, 0.11-0.22), respectively, with significant differences observed in the first 2 categories. In summary, CAR T-cell therapy outperformed bispecific antibody in achieving higher CR rates, although with an increase in severe adverse events.
Dit artikel is een samenvatting van een publicatie in Blood. Voor het volledige artikel, alle details en referenties verwijzen wij u naar de oorspronkelijke bron.
Lees het volledige artikelDOI: 10.1182/blood.2023023419