CAR-T Therapy for the Treatment of Relapsed/Refractory CD19 Positive Large B Cell Lymphoma: Canadian Real-World Evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy has demonstrated remarkable efficacy in relapsed or refractory large B cell lymphoma in clinical trials. However, real-world studies are further needed to determine the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of commercial CAR-T products in a broader population of patients. Current real-world CAR-T therapy studies have focused on large centres, many of whom already had experience in participating in CAR-T clinical trials. Therefore, it remains unknown if similar efficacy and safety outcomes may exist in other countries, like Canada, that have not been treating patients with CAR-T products since their inception. This demonstrates the increasing need for real-world studies in smaller hospital settings now offering commercially available CAR-T products. Methods : We conducted a retrospective review of all patients treated with commercially available CAR-T products, axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) or tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel), at The Ottawa Hospital between January 2020 to July 2022. The main objective was to describe the safety and efficacy of the two commercial CAR-T products in a real-world analysis. Results : Fifty-one patients (30 male - 59%), with a median age of 62 (range, 24-82), received commercial CAR-T products: axi-cel (n=27, 53%) or tisa-cel (n=24, 47%). Patient characteristics at infusion were balanced for both CAR-T products in the axi-cel group (68 years old (range, 51-76) vs 61 years old, (range, 24-76, p=0.003). Diffuse large B cell lymphoma (n=33, 65%) represented the majority of the indication for CAR-T therapy, followed by transformed follicular lymphoma (n=17, 33%). Primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma was the indication for 1 patient. Patients presented with either relapsed (n=30, 59%) or refractory (n=21, 41%) disease and received a median of 3 (range, 2-7) previous lines of therapy. Patients were referred from 13 centres across Canada and travelled a median distance of 655 km (range 3-3659) to receive treatment in Ottawa. The median time from last progression to referral and consultation was 15 days (range 0-200) and 20 days (range 1-211), respectively. Out-of-province patients experienced significantly longer times to referral and consultation compared to in-province patients (last progression to referral: 9 days versus 34 days, p<0.0001; last progression to consult: 15 days versus 42 days, p<0.0001). The median time from apheresis to CAR T-cell infusion was 36 days (range 26-81), with it being significantly longer for the tisa-cel cohort (p<0.001). Following apheresis, CAR-T products were successfully manufactured for all 51 patients. Out of 49 patients evaluable for response, the overall and complete response rate was 57% and 47%, respectively. With a median follow-up of 219 days (95% CI: 6-722), the median progression-free and overall survival was 257 days (95% CI: 92-NE) and 422 days (95% CI: 106-NE), respectively (Fig. 1). There was a trend towards longer progression-free survival among patients living in-province (280 days, 95% CI: 142-NE) versus out-of-province (115 days, 95% CI: 91-NE) (Fig. 2). Forty-seven patients experienced cytokine release syndrome (grade ≥ 3 in 3, 6%), and 20 experienced neurotoxicity (grade ≥ 3 in 6, 12%). Conclusion : Our results confirm that CAR-T therapy in the Canadian real-world setting has similar outcomes to other published series. Further real-world evidence with more robust patient parameters, like country size and geography, would provide additional crucial insight on distribution and accessibility of CAR-T treatment and demonstrate the importance of national registry data for CAR-T infusions.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".