MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407976889 · doi:10.1016/j.jtct.2025.01.323

Axicabtagene Ciloleucel (Axi-Cel) Versus Standard of Care (SOC) in Patients with Primary Refractory or Early Relapsed Large B-Cell Lymphoma (LBCL)

2025· article· en· W4407976889 on OpenAlexaff
Jason R. Westin, Olalekan O. Oluwole, Marie José Kersten, David B. Miklos, Miguel‐Angel Perales, Armin Ghobadi, Aaron P. Rapoport, Anna Sureda, Caron A. Jacobson, Umar Farooq, Matthew L. Ulrickson, Tom van Meerten, Mahmoud Elsawy, Sridhar Chaganti, Michael Dickinson, Lori A. Leslie, Peter Vandenberghe, Yin Yang, Christina To, Simone Filosto, Justin A. Budka, Saran Vardhanabhuti, Frederick L. Locke

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation and Cellular Therapy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCAR-T cell therapy research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRefractory (planetary science)B-cell lymphomaStandard of careLymphomaOncologyInternal medicineMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Historically, patients (pts) with primary refractory and early relapsed LBCL had poor outcomes. Axi-cel showed superior overall survival (OS) vs SOC in the ZUMA-7 intention-to-treat primary OS analysis (NCT03391466; Westin et al. NEJM. 2023). Objectives To determine survival benefit of axi-cel over SOC in the prespecified pt groups of primary refractory vs relapsed disease ≤12 mo of first-line (1L) therapy in ZUMA-7, and assess correlates of efficacy outcomes. Methods Study design and pt eligibility were reported in Locke et al. NEJM . 2022. Pts were randomized 1:1, stratified by 1L therapy response and second-line (2L) age-adjusted IPI, to axi-cel or SOC (chemotherapy followed by high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation in responding pts). As of 25 Jan 2023, OS, event-free survival (EFS) and progression-free survival (PFS) per investigator, and safety were reported for prespecified subgroup analysis. Pre-infusion tumor biopsies were used to assess levels of immune cell infiltrates by multiplex immunohistochemistry and gene expression signatures (GES) by Nanostring IO-360 TM and RNAseq. Results Of 180 and 179 pts randomized to axi-cel and SOC, 133 and 131 had primary refractory and 47 and 48 had early relapsed LBCL , respectively. Baseline characteristics for each group were generally balanced between arms and similar to all pts randomized in each arm. EFS and PFS (Fig. 1; HR [95% CI]) were improved with axi-cel vs SOC in primary refractory (EFS, 0.437 [0.326-0.585]; PFS, 0.550 [0.401-0.753]) and in early relapsed LBCL (EFS, 0.401 [0.241-0.668]; PFS, 0.445 [0.251-0.786]). OS appeared prolonged with axi-cel vs SOC in primary refractory (HR [95% CI], 0.828 [0.592-1.156]) and in early relapsed LBCL (HR [95% CI], 0.619 [0.321-1.193]). Pts with early relapsed LBCL appeared to have longer OS and PFS vs pts with primary refractory LBCL within the axi-cel arm (OS, median not reached vs 29.4 mo, respectively; PFS, median not reached vs 7.2 mo) and the SOC arm (OS, 52.0 vs 19.8 mo, respectively; PFS, 6.0 vs 2.9 mo). Safety profile of axi-cel in each group was consistent with that observed in overall pt arms. Significantly higher infiltration of CD4 and CD8 T cells ( P <.05; Fig. 2) as well as lower GES representative of hypoxia , glycolytic activity, and myeloid and stromal cells (Fig. 3) were observed in pts with early relapsed vs primary refractory LBCL. Conclusions Axi-cel markedly prolonged EFS, PFS, and OS over SOC in ZUMA-7 overall, and the magnitude of improvement was numerically greater in the early relapsed group compared with the primary refractory group. Differences in tumor immune contexture and metabolic pathways may contribute to improved outcomes in pts with early relapsed vs primary refractory disease. These findings support early referral of pts with relapsed and refractory LBCL for axi-cel as a preferred 2L SOC.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

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