MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400428906 · doi:10.1038/s41408-024-01084-w

Autologous transplant vs. CAR-T therapy in patients with DLBCL treated while in complete remission

2024· article· en· W4400428906 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood Cancer Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCAR-T cell therapy research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesOffice of Naval ResearchLegend BiotechPharmacyclicsTakeda OncologyHealth Resources and Services AdministrationMorphoSysSwedish Orphan BiovitrumVertex PharmaceuticalsOmeros CorporationAstellas PharmaAdaptive BiotechnologiesPfizerIncyteKiadis Pharmabluebird bioJazz PharmaceuticalsStemCyteActinium PharmaceuticalsCareDxNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationBristol-Myers SquibbCSL BehringBeiGeneHistoGeneticsAtara BiotherapeuticsNational Cancer InstituteGilead SciencesSanofiGlaxoSmithKlineGateway for Cancer ResearchMallinckrodt PharmaceuticalsAstellas Pharma USAmgen
KeywordsMedicineCumulative incidenceInternal medicineUnivariate analysisIncidence (geometry)Progression-free survivalHematopoietic cellSurgeryRetrospective cohort studyHematopoietic stem cell transplantationTransplantationMultivariate analysisChemotherapyHaematopoiesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In patients with relapsed DLBCL in complete remission (CR), autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto-HCT) and CAR-T therapy are both effective, but it is unknown which modality provides superior outcomes. We compared the efficacy of auto-HCT vs. CAR-T in patients with DLBCL in a CR. A retrospective observational study comparing auto-HCT (2015-2021) vs. CAR-T (2018-2021) using the Center for International Blood & Marrow Transplant Research registry. Median follow-up was 49.7 months for the auto-HCT and 24.7 months for the CAR-T cohort. Patients ages 18 and 75 with a diagnosis of DLBCL were included if they received auto-HCT (n = 281) or commercial CAR-T (n = 79) while in a CR. Patients undergoing auto-HCT with only one prior therapy line and CAR-T patients with a previous history of auto-HCT treatment were excluded. Endpoints included Progression-free survival (PFS), relapse rate, non-relapse mortality (NRM) and overall survival (OS). In univariate analysis, treatment with auto-HCT was associated with a higher rate of 2-year PFS (66.2% vs. 47.8%; p < 0.001), a lower 2-year cumulative incidence of relapse (27.8% vs. 48% ; p < 0.001), and a superior 2-year OS (78.9% vs. 65.6%; p = 0.037). In patients with early (within 12 months) treatment failure, auto-HCT was associated with a superior 2-year PFS (70.9% vs. 48.3% ; p < 0.001), lower 2-year cumulative incidence of relapse (22.8% vs. 45.9% ; p < 0.001) and trend for higher 2-year OS (82.4% vs. 66.1% ; p = 0.076). In the multivariable analysis, treatment with auto-HCT was associated with a superior PFS (hazard ratio 1.83; p = 0.0011) and lower incidence of relapse (hazard ratio 2.18; p < 0.0001) compared to CAR-T. In patients with relapsed LBCL who achieve a CR, treatment with auto-HCT is associated with improved clinical outcomes compared to CAR-T. These data support the consideration of auto-HCT in select patients with LBCL achieving a CR in the relapsed setting.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.269 · 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