Longitudinal patient-reported outcomes in patients receiving chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR-T) has transformed the treatment for relapsed/refractory hematologic malignancies; however, data on patient-reported outcomes in CAR-T are limited. We conducted a longitudinal study of adults with hematologic malignancies receiving CAR-T. We assessed quality of life (QOL; functional assessment of cancer therapy-general), psychological distress (hospital anxiety and depression scale, patient health questionnaire-9, posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD] checklist), and physical symptoms (Edmonton symptom assessment scale-revised) at baseline, 1 week, 1, 3, and 6 months after CAR-T. We used linear mixed models to identify factors associated with QOL trajectory. We enrolled 103 of 142 eligible patients (3 did not receive CAR-T). QOL (B = 1.96; P < .001) and depression (B = -0.32; P = .001) worsened by 1 week and improved by 6 months after CAR-T. At 6 months, 18%, 22%, and 22% reported clinically significant depression, anxiety, and PTSD symptoms, respectively. At 1 week, 52% reported severe physical symptoms, declining to 28% at 6 months after CAR-T. In unadjusted linear mixed models, worse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (B = 1.24; P = .042), receipt of tocilizumab (B = 1.54; P = .042), and receipt of corticosteroids for cytokine release syndrome and/or neurotoxicity (B = 2.05; P = .006) were associated with higher QOL trajectory. After CAR-T, QOL declined, and depression increased early, followed by improvements in QOL, psychological distress, and physical symptoms by 6 months after infusion. A significant minority of patients reported substantial psychological distress and physical symptoms longitudinally.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".