MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2777439917 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019321

Efficacy and safety of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy in patients with haematological and solid malignancies: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

2017· review· en· W2777439917 on OpenAlexafffund
Emma Grigor, Dean Fergusson, Fatima Haggar, Natasha Kekre, Harold Atkins, Risa Shorr, Robert A. Holt, Brian Hutton, Tim Ramsay, Matthew D. Seftel, Derek J. Jonker, Mads Daugaard, Kednapa Thavorn, Justin Presseau, Manoj M. Lalu

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCAR-T cell therapy research
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesHealth CanadaOttawa HospitalUniversity of WinnipegCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences CentreUniversity of Ottawa
FundersOttawa Hospital Anesthesia Alternate Funds Association
KeywordsMedicineChimeric antigen receptorMeta-analysisProtocol (science)ImmunologySystematic reviewAntigenOncologyImmunotherapyMEDLINEBioinformaticsIntensive care medicineInternal medicineAlternative medicinePathologyImmune system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Patients with relapsed or refractory malignancies have a poor prognosis. Immunotherapy with chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cells redirects a patient’s immune cells against the tumour antigen. CAR-T cell therapy has demonstrated promise in treating patients with several haematological malignancies, including acute B-cell lymphoblastic leukaemia and B-cell lymphomas. CAR-T cell therapy for patients with other solid tumours is also being tested. Safety is an important consideration in CAR-T cell therapy given the potential for serious adverse events, including death. Previous reviews on CAR-T cell therapy have been limited in scope and methodology. Herein, we present a protocol for a systematic review to identify CAR-T cell interventional studies and examine the safety and efficacy of this therapy in patients with haematology malignancies and solid tumours. Methods and analysis We will search MEDLINE, including In-Process and Epub Ahead of Print, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1946 to 22 February 2017. Studies will be screened by title, abstract and full text independently and in duplicate. Studies that report administering CAR-T cells of any chimeric antigen receptor construct targeting antigens in patients with haematological malignancies and solid tumours will be eligible for inclusion. Outcomes to be extracted will include complete response rate (primary outcome), overall response rate, overall survival, relapse and adverse events. A meta-analysis will be performed to synthesise the prevalence of outcomes reported as proportions with 95% CIs. The potential for bias within included studies will be assessed using a modified Institute of Health Economics tool. Heterogeneity of effect sizes will be determined using the Cochrane I 2 statistic. Ethics and dissemination The review findings will be submitted for peer-reviewed journal publication and presented at relevant conferences and scientific meetings to promote knowledge transfer. PROSPERO registration number CRD42017075331 .

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.530
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.312
GPT teacher head0.517
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicCAR-T cell therapy researchFrench-language works237,207