MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281263083 · doi:10.1016/j.jtct.2022.05.026

Real-World Evidence of Axicabtagene Ciloleucel for the Treatment of Large B Cell Lymphoma in the United States

2022· article· en· W4281263083 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Caron A. Jacobson, Frederick L. Locke, Long Ma, Julius Asubonteng, Zhen‐Huan Hu, Tanya Siddiqi, Sairah Ahmed, Armin Ghobadi, David B. Miklos, Yi Lin, Miguel‐Angel Perales, Matthew A. Lunning, Megan M. Herr, Brian T. Hill, Siddhartha Ganguly, Hua Dong, Sarah Nikiforow, Michele Hooper, Jun Kawashima, Hairong Xu, Marcelo C. Pasquini

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation and Cellular Therapy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCAR-T cell therapy research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLegend BiotechPharmacyclicsKite PharmaMorphoSysDaiichi-SankyoMiltenyi BiotecOmeros CorporationAstellas PharmaAdaptive BiotechnologiesPfizerIncyteTG Therapeuticsbluebird bioTessa TherapeuticsBeiGeneAtara BiotherapeuticsKyowa Kirin Pharmaceutical DevelopmentJanssen PharmaceuticalsMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer CenterNational Cancer InstituteServierGilead SciencesCelgeneNovartisAbbVieMerckBristol-Myers SquibbCidara TherapeuticsAstraZenecaAmgenSeagenSierra OncologyAstellas Pharma US
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineCohortOdds ratioConfidence intervalOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) is a standard-of-care for patients with relapsed or refractory (r/r) large B cell lymphoma who have received 2 or more lines of prior therapy. Patients receiving axi-cel in the real world could have broader a demographic, disease, and treatment profile compared with that of the cohort in the pivotal ZUMA-1 trial. The present study was conducted to evaluate the outcomes of axi-cel therapy in the real-world setting. A total of 1297 patients receiving commercial axi-cel between 2017 and 2020 were selected from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research's data registry, of whom 739 (57%) would have been ineligible for inclusion in the ZUMA-1 cohort. Efficacy and safety outcomes were described for the entire cohort and by ZUMA-1 eligibility. Their associations with age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Score, and comorbidities were evaluated using multivariable logistic and Cox regressions. At a median follow-up of 12.9 months, the overall response rate (ORR) was 73%, with a 56% complete response (CR) rate. Median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were 21.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.4 to 28.8 months) and 8.6 months (95% CI, 6.5 to 12.1 months), respectively. Duration of response (DOR) was comparable in the ZUMA-1 ineligible patients and ZUMA-1 eligible patients (62% by 1 year [95% CI, 57% to 66%] versus 67% [95% CI, 62% to 72%]). Patients age ≥65 years had favorable ORR (odds ratio [OR], 1.39; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.83) despite having a higher risk of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.94) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) (OR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.39-2.26). Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Score ≥2 was associated with inferior efficacy outcomes (OR for ORR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.18-0.56; hazard ratio [HR] for OS, 3.27; 95% CI, 2.37 to 4.52) and higher incidence of ICANS (OR, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.40 to 4.93). The patients ineligible for ZUMA-1 still had a durable response with axi-cel. Elderly patients had favorable efficacy outcomes despite higher rates of CRS and ICANS. Patient selection for standard-of-care axi-cel should consider comorbidities and risk-to-benefit ratio rather than be based strictly on ZUMA-1 eligibility.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations181
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransplantation and Cellular TherapySame topicCAR-T cell therapy researchFrench-language works237,207