The impact of distance to CAR-T centre on CAR-T delivery and CAR-T outcomes: A single centre retrospective cohort study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy has transformed the treatment landscape for relapsed and refractory B-cell malignancies. There is limited understanding of how Canada's large geographic area impacts CAR-T delivery and treatment response. Purpose: To evaluate the impact of distance to CAR-T centre on referral-to-infusion time, T-cell harvest to CAR-T infusion (vein-to-vein) time, bridging therapy use, treatment response, overall survival (OS), and immunoglobulin replacement practices. Methods: This single-centre retrospective cohort study included adults receiving CAR-T therapy at the Juravinski Cancer Centre (JCC) in Hamilton, Ontario between January 2020 and September 2024. Prospectively collected data was gathered from a local CAR-T patient registry. Patients were assigned to 4 distanced based cohorts (<20 km, 20-59.9 km, 60-149.9 km, and ≥150 km from the JCC based on postal code), and to either a CAR-T or non-CAR-T centre (referring centre) cohort. ANOVA, Wilcox rank sum test, and chi-square tests were used to determine predictors of referral-to-infusion time, vein-to-vein time, bridging therapy use, rates of complete and partial response (CR/PR), and immunoglobulin replacement. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests were used to assess OS. Results: Of the 146 patients included in this study, there was no significant difference in age, disease pathology, previous lines of therapy, or CAR-T products used amongst the CAR-T centre or non-CAR-T centre cohorts. Median referral-to-infusion times did not differ between distance cohorts, <20 km, 20-59.9 km, 60-149.9 km, and ≥150 km (43, 44, 42, and 47 days; p=0.79). Median vein-to-vein times also did not differ (41, 36, 37, and 37 days; p=0.15). Bridging therapy use differed amongst distance cohorts (85.2%, 83.3%, 69.6%, and 48% (p=0.005)). There was no significant difference in CR/PR rates amongst distance cohorts (59.3%, 47.8%, 54.6%, and 60% (p=0.96)). Distance did not predict immunoglobulin replacement rates (52%, 63%, 46%, and 44% receiving immunoglobulin products; p=0.55) or median duration of replacement (124, 135, 75, and 114 days; p=0.16). 53%, 57%, 67%, and 45% were documented as eventually discontinuing immunoglobulin products (p=0.69). 2-year OS was not significantly different amongst distance cohorts (57.5%, 37.5%, 42.7%, and 75.6% (p=0.079). Amongst treatment centre cohorts, median referral-to-infusion times were shorter in patients referred from a CAR-T versus a non-CAR-T centre (38 vs. 46 days; p=0.0071). Vein-to-vein times did not differ between CAR-T and non-CAR-T centre cohorts (37 vs. 36 days; p=0.84). CR/PR rates also did not differ between CAR-T and non-CAR-T centre cohorts (53.9% vs. 54.5%; p=0.96). More patients received bridging therapy in the CAR-T compared to the non-CAR-T centre cohort (92.3% vs. 66.4%; p=0.002). There was no significant difference in immunoglobulin use (58% vs. 50%; p=0.43) or median duration of replacement (154 vs. 133 days; p=0.89) in the CAR-T versus non-CAR-T centre cohorts; although more patients discontinued immunoglobulin replacement in the non-CAR-T centre cohort (34% vs. 58%; p=0.02). There was no significant difference in 2-year OS between CAR-T and non-CAR-T centre cohorts (43.8% vs. 54.5% p=0.84). Conclusions: Vein-to-vein time, treatment response, immunoglobulin replacement, and 2-year OS did not significantly differ amongst CAR-T centre and non-CAR-T centre cohorts, supporting the feasibility of CAR-T delivery across large geographic areas. Shorter referral-to-infusion times in the CAR-T centre cohort were likely due to singular physicians acting as both lymphoma and CAR-T providers, which did not affect vein-to-vein times. Patients residing further away or referred from non-CAR-T centres were less likely to require bridging therapy for disease control, suggesting that distant centres are referring a more stable patient population. Patients referred from non-CAR-T centres had higher immunoglobulin discontinuation rates, which may reflect centre-to-centre practice pattern variation. Future research comparing other CAR-T centres with large geographic disparities would be beneficial.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».