MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409448922 · doi:10.1097/io9.0000000000000062

Revolutionizing treatment for recurrent glioblastoma with intraventricular CARv3-TEAM-E T cells

2024· article· en· W4409448922 on OpenAlexaff
Ayush Anand, Nathnael Abera Woldehana, Prakasini Satapathy, Rakesh Sharma, Divya Sharma, Mithhil Arora, Mahalaqua Nazli Khatib, Shilpa Gaidhane, Quazi Syed Zahiruddin, Sarvesh Rustagi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Surgery Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCAR-T cell therapy research
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGlioblastomaInternal medicineCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dear Editor, Glioblastoma remains one of the most daunting challenges in neuro-oncology, notorious for its poor prognosis and limited treatment options1. It is characterized by its aggressive growth and recurrence, often leading to a median survival of just over a year with current therapies2. A recent study has shown the use of intraventricular CARv3-TEAM-E T cells, a form of immunotherapy that targets cancer cells with remarkable precision3. The study focuses on a new variant of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy, specifically engineered to target EGFRvIII, a common mutation in glioblastoma cells3. Unlike traditional treatments, which often fail to selectively target tumor cells and spare normal brain tissue, CARv3-TEAM-E T cells are designed to recognize and destroy only the cancer cells, minimizing damage to surrounding healthy cells. This early phase 1 study included three patients with recurrent glioblastoma, who had exhausted other treatment options, received intraventricular infusions of CARv3-TEAM-E T cells3. A single infusion of CARv3-TEAM-E T cells, led to rapid regression of the tumor, confirmed radiologically using MRI scans. Tumor regression was transient in two patients, and one of the patients had durable regression during the short term follow-up. Also, the treatment was well-tolerated, with manageable side effects compared to the often-debilitating consequences of conventional chemotherapy and radiation. One of the patients died due to gastrointestinal perforation, which was not attributed to CARv3-TEAM-E T cell infusion. The rest of the two patients developed pulmonary nodules and ground glass opacities, which were transient and resolved by 4–6 weeks. This groundbreaking therapy could potentially redefine the landscape of treatment for recurrent glioblastoma, offering new hope to patients battling this aggressive cancer. First and foremost, this therapy offers a lifeline to patients with recurrent glioblastoma, potentially increasing survival times and improving quality of life. Moreover, the success of intraventricular administration suggests that similar approaches could be developed for other types of brain tumors, potentially ushering in a new era of cancer treatment. By investigating specific genetic markers, treatments can be tailored to individual patients, enhancing efficacy and reducing unwanted side effects. This personalized approach to cancer treatment is at the forefront of oncological research and could lead to more successful outcomes across a spectrum of cancers4. However, the path forward is not without challenges. The complexity and cost of developing and administering CAR T cell therapies may limit accessibility for many patients, particularly in less developed healthcare systems. Furthermore, as with any new treatment, long-term effects and effectiveness in a broader population remain to be evaluated in phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials. In conclusion, the development of intraventricular CARv3-TEAM-E T cells for the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma is a significant milestone in the fight against one of the most aggressive cancers. As we advance, it is imperative that we continue to innovate, research, and advocate for therapies that can transform the landscape of cancer treatment. Ethical approval Ethical approval is not applicable for this correspondence article. Consent Informed consent is not applicable for this correspondence article. Sources of funding Not applicable. Author contribution A.A.: conceptualization, project administration, supervision, validation, visualization, writing –original draft, and writing – review and editing; N.A.W.: project administration, validation, visualization, writing – original draft, and writing – review and editing; P.S. and R.K.S.: supervision, validation, and writing – review and editing; D.S., M.A., M.N.K., S.G., Q.S.Z., and S.R.: supervision, validation, and writing – review and editing. Conflicts of interest disclosure No conflict of interest to declare. Research registration unique identifying number (UIN) Not applicable. Guarantor Ayush Anand. Data availability statement Not applicable. Provenance and peer review Not commissioned, externally peer-reviewed.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.828
Threshold uncertainty score0.855

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Surgery OpenSame topicCAR-T cell therapy researchFrench-language works237,207