An international survey on the management of patients receiving CAR T-cell therapy for haematological malignancies on behalf of the Chronic Malignancies Working Party of EBMT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: ) - have been approved for commercial use. In order to inform forthcoming EBMT guidelines on the management of adults and children undergoing autologous CAR T-cell therapy, we undertook a survey of experienced clinicians. METHODS: An online survey with a dual focus on (1) 'real world' patient eligibility criteria and (2) models of care for patient follow-up was sent to experienced physicians. RESULTS: There were 41 respondents (10 countries) and 93% worked in FACT-JACIE-accredited transplant centres. Most felt that a history of malignancy (57%), prior allo-HCT for B-NHL (78%-81%) and prior treatment with anti-CD19/CD3 BiTE antibodies (76%-86%) do not constitute contra-indications to CAR T therapy. Clinicians were divided as to whether CNS involvement represented an exclusion criterion. There was agreement that patients with viral infections (HIV, Hepatitis B or Hepatitis C) are not eligible. There is no common model of care for long-term follow-up. Most respondents believed that patients should attend the hospital two (43%) to three (33%) times weekly during the first month following discharge. A majority (69%) of respondents work in centres where there is an MDT meeting with a specific focus on follow-up following CAR T Therapy. Follow-up care is currently delivered either in HCT or haematology-oncology outpatient clinics. CONCLUSION: The responses reveal wide variation in perceived patient eligibility criteria and highlight the need for consensus guidelines. The findings also illustrate the embryonic nature of current follow-up arrangements.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".