MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4417019669 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-4596

Real-world incidence and management of non-icans neurologic events following ciltacabtagene autoleucel in multiple myeloma

2025· article· en· W4417019669 sur OpenAlexaff
Doris K. Hansen, Omar Castañeda Puglianini, Ariel Grajales‐Cruz, Saurabh Nagar, Lin Fan, Victoria R. Alegria, Kevin C. De Braganca, Tamar Lengil, Mukta Sharma, H. C. Pai, Matthew Perciavalle, Jessica Maitland, Bruno Émond, Todd Bixby, Zaina P. Qureshi, Murali Janakiram

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueCAR-T cell therapy research
Établissements canadiensGroup for Research in Decision AnalysisInnovative Research Group (Canada)
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésIncidence (geometry)Multiple myelomaLenalidomideMedical recordCohortRetrospective cohort studyInterim analysisChartMedical diagnosis

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) is an established effective treatment strategy for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in fifth line or later (5L+) and was recently approved for patients who have received ≥1 prior line of therapy. Although rare, non-immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) neurologic events (NEs), including cranial nerve palsy (CNP), parkinsonism, and Guillain-Barré syndrome, may occur post-infusion. This study evaluated the incidence, clinical characteristics, and management strategies of non-ICANS NEs to inform patient care. Methods: This retrospective cohort analysis utilized Loopback Analytics electronic medical records (Feb 2017–May 2025) supplemented with physician chart notes from academic and community centers across the US. Adults treated with cilta-cel in second to fourth line (2L–4L) and 5L+ settings were included if they had ≥1 absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) test within 30 days pre- and post-infusion. Incident non-ICANS NEs were defined as ≥2 ICD-10 diagnoses of the same condition on distinct days within 30 days of each other. Non-ICANS NEs were further verified through manual chart review using unstructured data elements from patient charts to ensure clinical accuracy. Pre-lymphodepletion ALC (x 103/μL; i.e., closest value to cilta-cel infusion),post-infusion peak ALC (x 103/μL), and management strategies for non-ICANS NEs were described along with cilta-cel response and mortality. Interim results are presented; data collection is ongoing with updated analyses planned for additional patients. Results: Among 174 patients (2L–4L cilta-cel: 73; 5L+ cilta-cel: 101), median age was 64 years (range: 37-83 years). With a median follow-up of 6.1 months (2L–4L; range: 0.2-13.3) and 17.2 months (5L+; range: 1.1-33.0), non-ICANS NEs remained rare. CNP occurred in 4 (5.5%) patients in the 2L–4L cohort and 3 (3.0%) in the 5L+ cohort. Parkinsonism and Guillain-Barré syndrome were each reported in 1 patient, both in the 5L+ cohort, with no cases observed in 2L–4L. Among patients without non-ICANS NEs, the median post-infusion peak ALC was 2.1 in the 2L–4L cohort and 2.0 in the 5L+ cohort. In the 2L–4L cohort, 4 CNP cases occurred at a median of 29 days post-infusion. Median pre-lymphodepletion ALC was 0.10, while post-infusion peak ALC was 7.6 (range: 1.2-16.8; median day 11 post-infusion). Management included prednisone and valacyclovir. Over a median follow-up of 6.7 months, 3 (75.0%) patients showed improvement in CNP (median 15 days), and 1 (25.0%) patient experienced full resolution by day 62. In the 5L+ cohort, 3 CNP cases occurred at a median of 25 days post-infusion. Median pre-lymphodepletion ALC was 0.10, and post-infusion peak ALC was 8.8 (range: 8.3-26.9; median day 11 post-infusion). Management reported for one 5L+ CNP patient resulting in full resolution of CNP included prednisone, dexamethasone, and valacyclovir; data on CNP improvement wasn't documented for the remaining two patients in the medical charts. Over a median follow-up of 7.9 months, all 3 patients achieved a complete response to cilta-cel. The one case of parkinsonism in the 5L+ cohort occurred on day 46 post-infusion. Pre-lymphodepletion ALC was 0.60, with a post-infusion peak ALC of 14.5 on day 15. Management for parkinsonism included cyclophosphamide. The patient achieved complete response to cilta-cel within 15.5 months of follow-up. Data on neurologic symptom improvement wasn't documented for this patient in the medical charts. Finally, the case of Guillain-Barré syndrome in the 5L+ cohort occurred on day 105 post-infusion. Pre-lymphodepletion ALC was 0.04, with a post-infusion peak ALC of 8.8 on day 10. During the 15.7 month follow-up period, management included intravenous immunoglobulin and plasma exchange, and the patient achieved complete response post-cilta-cel. Data on neurologic symptom improvement wasn't documented for this patient in the medical charts. Conclusion: In this real-world cohort, CNP, parkinsonism, and Guillain-Barré syndrome cases were infrequent following cilta-cel infusion. Affected patients had higher post-infusion peak ALCs compared to those without non-ICANS NEs, suggesting peak ALC may serve as a potential biomarker for identifying patients at risk for NEs and guiding prophylactic and therapeutic strategies. Despite experiencing non-ICANS NEs, all patients with available response assessments responded to cilta-cel, and no deaths were reported.

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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
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 enseignants0,016
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,031

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

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 Opus0,024
Tête enseignante GPT0,320
Écart entre enseignants0,296 · 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

Citations1
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetCAR-T cell therapy researchTravaux en français237 207