The impact of distance to CAR-T centre on CAR-T delivery and CAR-T outcomes: A single centre retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy has transformed the treatment landscape for relapsed and refractory B-cell malignancies. There is limited understanding of how Canada's large geographic area impacts CAR-T delivery and treatment response. Purpose: To evaluate the impact of distance to CAR-T centre on referral-to-infusion time, T-cell harvest to CAR-T infusion (vein-to-vein) time, bridging therapy use, treatment response, overall survival (OS), and immunoglobulin replacement practices. Methods: This single-centre retrospective cohort study included adults receiving CAR-T therapy at the Juravinski Cancer Centre (JCC) in Hamilton, Ontario between January 2020 and September 2024. Prospectively collected data was gathered from a local CAR-T patient registry. Patients were assigned to 4 distanced based cohorts (<20 km, 20-59.9 km, 60-149.9 km, and ≥150 km from the JCC based on postal code), and to either a CAR-T or non-CAR-T centre (referring centre) cohort. ANOVA, Wilcox rank sum test, and chi-square tests were used to determine predictors of referral-to-infusion time, vein-to-vein time, bridging therapy use, rates of complete and partial response (CR/PR), and immunoglobulin replacement. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests were used to assess OS. Results: Of the 146 patients included in this study, there was no significant difference in age, disease pathology, previous lines of therapy, or CAR-T products used amongst the CAR-T centre or non-CAR-T centre cohorts. Median referral-to-infusion times did not differ between distance cohorts, <20 km, 20-59.9 km, 60-149.9 km, and ≥150 km (43, 44, 42, and 47 days; p=0.79). Median vein-to-vein times also did not differ (41, 36, 37, and 37 days; p=0.15). Bridging therapy use differed amongst distance cohorts (85.2%, 83.3%, 69.6%, and 48% (p=0.005)). There was no significant difference in CR/PR rates amongst distance cohorts (59.3%, 47.8%, 54.6%, and 60% (p=0.96)). Distance did not predict immunoglobulin replacement rates (52%, 63%, 46%, and 44% receiving immunoglobulin products; p=0.55) or median duration of replacement (124, 135, 75, and 114 days; p=0.16). 53%, 57%, 67%, and 45% were documented as eventually discontinuing immunoglobulin products (p=0.69). 2-year OS was not significantly different amongst distance cohorts (57.5%, 37.5%, 42.7%, and 75.6% (p=0.079). Amongst treatment centre cohorts, median referral-to-infusion times were shorter in patients referred from a CAR-T versus a non-CAR-T centre (38 vs. 46 days; p=0.0071). Vein-to-vein times did not differ between CAR-T and non-CAR-T centre cohorts (37 vs. 36 days; p=0.84). CR/PR rates also did not differ between CAR-T and non-CAR-T centre cohorts (53.9% vs. 54.5%; p=0.96). More patients received bridging therapy in the CAR-T compared to the non-CAR-T centre cohort (92.3% vs. 66.4%; p=0.002). There was no significant difference in immunoglobulin use (58% vs. 50%; p=0.43) or median duration of replacement (154 vs. 133 days; p=0.89) in the CAR-T versus non-CAR-T centre cohorts; although more patients discontinued immunoglobulin replacement in the non-CAR-T centre cohort (34% vs. 58%; p=0.02). There was no significant difference in 2-year OS between CAR-T and non-CAR-T centre cohorts (43.8% vs. 54.5% p=0.84). Conclusions: Vein-to-vein time, treatment response, immunoglobulin replacement, and 2-year OS did not significantly differ amongst CAR-T centre and non-CAR-T centre cohorts, supporting the feasibility of CAR-T delivery across large geographic areas. Shorter referral-to-infusion times in the CAR-T centre cohort were likely due to singular physicians acting as both lymphoma and CAR-T providers, which did not affect vein-to-vein times. Patients residing further away or referred from non-CAR-T centres were less likely to require bridging therapy for disease control, suggesting that distant centres are referring a more stable patient population. Patients referred from non-CAR-T centres had higher immunoglobulin discontinuation rates, which may reflect centre-to-centre practice pattern variation. Future research comparing other CAR-T centres with large geographic disparities would be beneficial.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".