Comparative real-world outcomes of CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapies in large B-cell lymphoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Although 3 commercial CD19-targeted chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies are available for large B-cell lymphomas (LBCLs), no randomized clinical trials have compared their efficacy and safety. In this retrospective multicenter cohort study, we evaluated real-world clinical outcomes of patients with relapsed/refractory LBCL treated with axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel), tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel), or lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel). Between April 2016 and July 2024, 624 patients received CD19-targeted CAR T-cell therapies (344 axi-cel, 142 tisa-cel, and 138 liso-cel). At a median follow-up of 20.9 months, the respective estimated 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 46% and 63% for axi-cel, 30% and 45% for tisa-cel, and 45% and 58% for liso-cel. After adjusting for potential confounders in multivariate analyses, tisa-cel was associated with inferior PFS and OS compared to axi-cel. No significant survival differences were found between liso-cel and axi-cel. Propensity score and subanalyses of patients treated in the second-line vs third-line or later settings yielded similar outcomes. Compared to axi-cel, the objective response rate at 100 days was higher for liso-cel and lower for tisa-cel. Rates of cytokine release syndrome, immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, and immune effector cell-associated hematotoxicity, and febrile neutropenia were significantly higher with axi-cel. However, no significant differences in the cumulative incidence of infections or nonrelapse mortality were found. Axi-cel was associated with faster vein-to-vein time (axi-cel, 35 days; tisa-cel, 43 days; liso-cel, 41 days) and fewer out-of-specification products (axi-cel, 2%; tisa-cel, 4%; liso-cel, 11%). These results provide insights into potential differential outcomes depending on product selection.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".