MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4389243266 · doi:10.1182/blood-2023-187295

CAR T-Related Toxicities Based on Dynamic Proteomic Profiles Identifies Risk Factors for Cytokine Release Syndrome (CRS) and Immune Effector Cell -Associated Neurotoxicity Syndrome (ICANS)

2023· article· en· W4389243266 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tariq Kewan, Abu‐Sayeef Mirza, Alexander B. Pine, Yusuf Rasheed, Ramzi Hamouche, Etienne Léveillé, George Goshua, Sean X. Gu, Yuxin Liu, Jennifer VanOudenhove, Noffar Bar, Natalia Neparidze, Francine M. Foss, Lohith Gowda, Iris Isufi, Stephanie Halene, Alfred Ian Lee, Stuart Seropian

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueCAR-T cell therapy research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCytokine release syndromeMedicineReceiver operating characteristicOncologyInternal medicineImmunologyArea under the curveImmune systemPharmacologyImmunotherapyChimeric antigen receptor

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

TK and SM are Co-first authors INTRODUCTION Treatment with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cells significantly improved outcomes in relapsed/refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and multiple myeloma (MM). CAR-T activation and anti-tumor cytotoxicity are associated with bystander inflammatory reactions resulting in CRS and/or ICANS. Due to complex cytokine profiles, disease heterogeneity, and variability between commercial CAR-T products, identification of risk factors associated with CRS and/or ICANS has been challenging. In this study, we used plasma proteomic profiling at different timepoints to identify possible inflammatory mediators associated with CRS and ICANS METHODS We prospectively collected plasma samples from patients who received CAR-T cells therapy between 9/2021 to 12/2022 at several time points - before lymphodepletion chemotherapy on day -5 (relative to CAR-T cell infusion), prior to CAR T-cell infusion on day 0, and post CAR T-cell therapy on days 1, 2, 3, and 7. Protein profiling analyses were conducted at Eve Technologies (Calgary, Alberta, Canada) using an assay measuring 71 total cytokines and chemokines. Proteins levels were compared across different time points used Wilcoxon rank test, while features associated with CRS/ICANS were identified using logistic regression. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis used to identify variables predictive for CRS. Area under the curve (AUC) of at least 0.8 was used and best cutoffs were determined according to Youden index. P-values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. This study was supported in part by The Frederick A. Deluca Foundation. RESULTS Overall, 56 patients with available cytokine assays at all time points were included. The median age was 65 years (IQR: 57-74) and 70% were men. Of all patients, 26 (46%) had diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), 23 (41%) MM, 4 (7%) mantle cell lymphoma, and 3 (6) follicular lymphoma. Ide-cel (39%), liso-cel (36%), and axi-cel (17%) were the most used CAR-T cell products. All patients received lymphodepleting chemotherapy with fludarabine/cyclophosphamide. In total, 35 (63%) patients developed CRS (grade 1, 89%; grade 2, 8%; grade 3, 3%) and 18 (32%) patients developed ICANS (grade 1, 72%; grade 2, 22%; grade 3, 6%). Compared to patients who did not develop CRS, patients with CRS had lower median absolute lymphocyte counts at day -5 (0.02 x10 9/L vs. 0.05, p=0.0146), higher baseline CRP (13 vs. 4 mg/L, p=0.0005), and higher ferritin (914 vs. 442 mg/L, p=0.048). No differences in the type of CAR-T products (p=0.090), percentages of DLBCL or MM (p=0.270) were observed between CRS and no CRS cohorts ( Panel-A). First, we investigated the proteomic profiles at baseline for CRS odds. Hemoglobin (odd ratio [OR]: 0.6, 95%CI: 0.4-0.8) was associated with lower odds for CRS while IL6 (2.0, 1.2-3.3) and stem cell factor (scf 2.2, 1.2-4.2) were associated with higher odds of CRS. We then analyzed the differences in cytokine levels between day 0 and day 3 to select cytokines with significant changes for further analysis ( Panel-B). At day 3, groa (1.9, 1.1-3.3), IL3 (1.6, 1.2-2.1), IL5 (1.5, 1.2-1.9), IL6 (1.7, 1.3-2.3), IL10 (2.0, 1.3-3.0), TNFα (2.0, 1.1-3.6), and mcp2 (2.5, 1.2-5.3) were all associated with higher odds for CRS. Based on ROC analysis at day 3, best cutoff points to estimate CRS (value, sensitivity/specificity) for IL3 (3, 80%/90%), IL5 (197, 74%/85%), IL6 (11, 70%/85%), and IL10 (53, 74%/85%) were identified. Based on that, elevated IL3 (OR:24, 95%CI: 6-105), IL5 (11, 3-40), IL6 (21, 5-95), and IL10 (12, 3-46) were associated with higher odds for CRS. For ICANS, day 3 IL3 (1.5, 1.2-1.9), IL6 (1.2, 1.1-1.5), IL8 (2.1, 1.4-3.3), and IL10 (1.7, 1.3-2.4) were associated with higher odds for ICANS. Best cutoff points to estimate ICANS at day 3 (value, sensitivity/specificity) for IL3 (5, 78%/76%), IL6 (115, 78%/78%), IL10 (130, 81%/80%), and IL8 (21, 83%/81%) were identified. Based on that, elevated IL3 (OR:10, 95%CI: 3-37), IL6 (11, 3-43), IL10 (13, 3-51), and IL8 (19, 4-81) were associated with higher odds for ICANS. CONCLUSIONS In our comprehensive plasma proteomic profiles analysis, we identified cutoffs for IL3, IL6, IL5 and IL10 that may be predictive for CRS and ICANS regardless of CAR-T cell product. Our results are clinically applicable and may be used to recognize patients at risk for CRS and/or ICANS who may be eligible for prophylactic therapies.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,001
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,005

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,256
Écart entre enseignants0,243 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations4
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetCAR-T cell therapy researchTravaux en français237 207