MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407976601 · doi:10.1016/j.jtct.2025.01.159

Fludarabine during Lymphodepletion Chemotherapy Prior to CAR-T Cell Therapy in Adult Patients with Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: Evaluation of a Pharmacokinetic Model and Exploration of Optimal Exposure

2025· article· en· W4407976601 on OpenAlexaff
Philippe Bouchard, Justine Verdier, Rose Poitras, Aline Kilo, Isabelle Fleury, Luigina Mollica, Olivier Veilleux, Sandra Cohen, Vincent De Guire, Zacharie Sauvé, Denis Projean, Amélie Marsot

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation and Cellular Therapy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCAR-T cell therapy research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFludarabineChemotherapyMedicinePharmacokineticsLymphomaCyclophosphamideOncologyPharmacologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Optimal fludarabine exposure (cumulative area under the curve - AUC) during lymphodepletion chemotherapy (LD) has been associated with improved clinical outcomes for adult patients (pts) receiving CAR-T cell therapy for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), using a published population pharmacokinetic (popPK) model. This model has not yet been validated in NHL pts undergoing CAR-T cell therapy. The objectives of this study are to first to perform an external evaluation of the popPK model; second, to explore the relationship between fludarabine exposure and clinical outcomes after CAR-T cell therapy. Methods We conducted a prospective observational study. Pts provided 7 to 9 blood samples over 3 days during LD prior to CAR-T therapy. Fludarabine plasma concentration was determined by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. The external evaluation comprised a visual inspection of the predicted/measured concentrations, accompanied by a statistical evaluation (bias ± 20%; imprecision < 30%). A comparison was made between fludarabine exposure obtained using a priori (population predicted AUC – only covariates) or a posteriori (measured AUC - pts PK profiles and individual covariates) prediction. In addition, the clinical outcomes (progression-free survival, CRS, ICANS) after CAR-T were obtained from pts charts and stratified for measured fludarabine exposure. NONMEM and SPSS were used to perform pharmacokinetic and statistical analyses. Results A total of 100 samples were obtained from 13 pts (Figure 1) for determination of fludarabine concentrations. Population prediction performance of the published popPK model was unsatisfactory (bias -20.7%; inaccuracy 21.2%). However, when patient PK profiles and individual covariates were included, the predictive performance showed improvement (bias -0.85%; inaccuracy 3.04%). Measured fludarabine exposure was significantly different from the population predicted exposure (median cumulative AUC of 20.6 mg*h/L vs 18.1 mg*h/L, p < 0.01, paired t-test) (Figure 2). Median follow-up was 95 days after CAR-T infusion for all pts (range 31-210 days), with 4 out of 6 pts with cumulative AUC < 20 mg*h/L experiencing disease progression . No progression event occured among 7 pts with cumulative AUC ≥ 20 mg*h/L (Figure 3). No relationship was observed between fludarabine exposure and toxicity (CRS grade 1-2 in 92 % of pts, ICANS grade 1-4 in 53 % of pts). Conclusion In a real-world population of adult NHL pts, the measured fludarabine exposure is significantly higher than the predicted exposure from a published popPK model. Updating this model could enhance its predictive capabilities. The use of popPK-guided dosing to achieve the desired fludarabine cumulative AUC during LD remains a topic of interest and may lead to improved clinical outcomes in CAR-T cell therapy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

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