1. Introduction
Hematological cancers are a significant global health issue characterized by high mortality rates [ 1 , 2 ]. They negatively affect patients’ life expectancy and quality of life (QoL) and impose a substantial economic burden [ 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ]. The clinical outcomes for hematological cancers have improved with the development of targeted therapies, such as small molecule inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies, and recombinant immunotoxins and, more recently, chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell therapies, antibody–drug conjugates, and bispecific T-cell engagers [ 7 ]. CAR-T therapies have emerged as a revolutionary treatment option, demonstrating remarkably effective and durable clinical responses for hematological cancers [ 8 , 9 ]. This therapy involves reprogramming the patient’s own T-cells to target the tumor cells wherein host T-cells are collected and are genetically modified ex vivo to express a CAR targeting a tumor-specific antigen [ 10 ]. To date, a total of six CAR-T therapies (tisagenlecleucel, axicabtagene ciloleucel, brexucabtagene autoleucel, lisocabtagene maraleucel, idecabtagene vicleucel, and ciltacabtagene autoleucel) have been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for multiple hematological cancers [ 11 , 12 , 13 ] based on pivotal clinical trials demonstrating promising results of efficacy outcomes [ 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ]. Notably, clinical trials focusing on CAR-T therapies have exhibited complete remission rates of 70–90% in relapsed or refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) [ 14 , 15 , 16 ] and 40–58% in non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) [ 17 ]. Additionally, an overall response rate of 97% was shown in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma [ 19 , 20 ]. Furthermore, the complete response rate of 73.1% was shown in lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma in a phase 3 randomized open-label trial, CARTITUDE-4 [ 21 ].
CAR-T therapies have typically been administered in an inpatient setting followed by monitoring of patients closely for several weeks for serious side effects, such as cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurotoxicity [ 22 ]. However, the outpatient delivery of CAR-Ts is rapidly expanding for patients with a suitable benefit–risk clinical profile and based on overall greater predictability of the clinical course and patient preference. This has the potential to significantly reduce the treatment burden for patients and caregivers and the overall cost burden to the healthcare system associated with inpatient care [ 22 ]. Previous trials have demonstrated the feasibility of outpatient CAR-T administration and indicated that such outpatient infusion may be more convenient and preferred by patients and health systems [ 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ]. Challenges in outpatient CAR-T administration, however, include the availability of trained multidisciplinary teams and the infrastructure required to identify and manage complications that need early intervention, suitable reimbursement policies, and caregiver education. Furthermore, patient-specific factors including disease characteristics, clinical status, predictability of adverse events (AEs), medical center proximity, and caregiver support impact the decision on the setting of CAR-T administration [ 22 , 26 ]. Although there are some standalone studies that have presented a case for outpatient delivery of CAR-T therapies, there is currently no published systematic literature review (SLR) comparing the clinical safety, efficacy, QoL, economic implication, and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) of CAR-T administration in the two settings. This SLR aims to fill this gap by identifying and summarizing the existing clinical and economic evidence on CAR-T therapies and comparing the outcomes for inpatient versus outpatient CAR-T administration in patients with hematological cancer.
2. Methods
2.1. Study Design and Search Process
This SLR was carried out in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist [ 27 ] and the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version 6.3 [ 28 ]. The protocol has not been registered. Records were retrieved from MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane electronic databases. Additionally, manual searching of conference proceedings, bibliographic sources, and other grey literature sources, such as Google, Google Scholar, and disease-specific websites/conferences [American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), American Society of Hematology (ASH), European Hematology Association (EHA), International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR), and Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP)] was carried out. The bibliographies of relevant SLRs on the research topic were also searched to identify any additional studies. The search strategies for each database are provided in Tables S1–S3 . The literature search was limited to articles published from 1 January 2016 to 4 January 2023. The starting year was chosen as 2016 to ensure the coverage of all relevant studies that may have influenced the approvals of CAR-T therapy, the first of which occurred in 2017.
2.2. Eligibility Criteria
This SLR included studies reporting relevant outcomes of CAR-T therapy administration in both outpatient and inpatient settings or only the outpatient setting among patients with lymphoma, ALL, or multiple myeloma. Relevant outcomes included safety, efficacy, QoL, costs, and HCRU measures. Studies that did not report the setting of CAR-T administration were excluded. Clinical trials and observational (prospective and retrospective) studies were included whereas non-human studies were excluded. The screening of articles to evaluate conformance to eligibility criteria was performed independently by two reviewers and any disagreements were resolved in discussion with a third reviewer.
2.3. Data Extraction
Two reviewers independently extracted the following data from the included studies: study characteristics, patient characteristics, treatment-related information, and outcomes of interest. Any inconsistencies were resolved through discussion between the two reviewers. If necessary, a third reviewer was consulted to mediate and reach a consensus.
2.4. Quality Assessment and Risk of Bias
The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool version 2 (RoB 2) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) [ 29 ], the Downs and Black (Downs 1998) checklist for non-RCTs [ 30 ], and the Newcastle and Ottawa scale (NOS) for observational studies [ 31 ] were utilized for quality assessment.
2.5. Data Analysis
Evidence identified from the systematic literature search was analyzed qualitatively. The compiled evidence was tabulated, summarized, and presented graphically for the following elements of the research: study details (trial design, tumor type, treatment setting, sample size, and follow-up duration) and outcomes presented (safety, efficacy, QoL, HCRU, and costs incurred). Safety outcomes included the cytokine release syndrome (CRS), neurologic toxicities, and other toxicities reported in individual publications while the collated efficacy outcomes included the complete response (CR), partial response (PR), overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). HCRU measures reported included the rate of, time to, and reasons for hospitalization, length of hospital stay, rate of ICU admissions and length of stay, and outpatient visits. Costs incurred in different follow-up periods post-infusion were compiled and categorized as available.
The data were reported separately for outpatient and inpatient cohorts and included evidence from comparative as well as single cohort studies.
3. Results
3.1. Literature Search Results
Database searches identified 7701 initial records. After deduplication, 5648 records remained for screening against inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 1125 records met the relevant criteria and an additional 83 records were obtained from supplementary sources including Google Scholar, conference proceedings, and a bibliography of identified studies and SLRs, resulting in a total of 1208 records. Ultimately, 38 records that reported outcomes for patients who underwent infusion/management in the outpatient setting or in both outpatient and inpatient settings were considered for qualitative synthesis ( Figure 1 ).
3.2. Study Characteristics
The 38 included records were based on 21 unique studies, most of which were published in 2022 and 2023. The patient populations of these studies included individuals diagnosed with ALL, various types of lymphoma, such as B-cell lymphoma (BCL) and follicular lymphoma (FL), and multiple myeloma.
In total, 18 of these 21 studies were conducted in the United States [ 26 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 ]. The TRANSFORM phase 3 clinical trial was conducted in the United States, Japan, and various European countries including Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom [ 64 , 65 ]. Additionally, the ELARA phase 2 clinical trial encompassed multinational locations, including centers in the United States and Australia [ 66 , 67 ]. Only one retrospective study did not report the specific location where it was conducted [ 68 ]. Eleven studies reported data on CAR-T administration in both outpatient and inpatient settings [ 26 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 58 , 61 , 62 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 ]. These publications were based on 5 clinical trials, namely OUTREACH [ 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 ], ELARA [ 66 , 67 ], PILOT [ 39 , 40 , 41 ], TRANSCEND NHL 001 [ 42 , 43 , 44 ], and TRANSFORM [ 64 , 65 ], where the choice of site of care for patients treated with CAR-T therapies was determined at the investigator’s discretion, taking into consideration the perspectives of multiple stakeholders including healthcare providers, patients, and caregivers.
Nine of the shortlisted studies reported efficacy outcomes including response rates and survival outcomes [ 36 , 37 , 39 , 42 , 47 , 55 , 57 , 60 , 63 , 67 ]. Only one clinical trial reported QoL in the patient groups of interest [ 38 ]. Five studies reported data on AEs, including CRS and neurologic toxicity [ 37 , 39 , 42 , 53 , 67 ]. Seven studies reported costs/reimbursement amounts associated with the administration of CAR-T in both settings [ 26 , 41 , 52 , 53 , 62 , 65 , 67 ]. Ten studies reported data on HCRU [ 26 , 37 , 39 , 41 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 62 , 67 , 68 ] in both settings while a further seven studies reported HCRU among patients who received CAR-T only in the outpatient setting [ 26 , 37 , 39 , 41 , 46 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 57 , 59 , 60 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 67 , 68 ]. The distribution of age, sex, performance status, number of prior treatment lines, and other patient characteristics varied across the studies. Details of the included studies and patient characteristics are shown in Table 1 and Table 2 .
3.3. Quality Assessment
All of the 21 studies included in the analysis underwent a quality assessment using relevant checklists based on their study design. The assessment aimed to evaluate the risk of bias and the overall quality of the studies. The ROB 2 checklist was used to assess the RCTs conducted by Kamdar in 2022 [ 64 ]. The findings from this assessment revealed a high risk of bias in the trial ( Table S4 ). The modified Downs and Black checklist with 27 items assessed eight non-randomized single-arm trials. Table S5 highlights one study of good quality (score, 15–17), five of fair quality (score, 12–14), and two of poor quality (score < 11) [ 38 , 39 , 42 , 46 , 49 , 51 , 67 ]. The NOS criteria were used to assess the quality of double-arm and single-arm observational studies. Of the six double-arm studies, five were considered of good quality (score > 6) and one of fair quality (score 5) ( Table S6 ). Among the six single-arm studies, five were rated as good quality (score > 4) and one as fair quality (score 4) [ 26 , 41 , 45 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 57 , 59 , 60 , 62 , 63 , 68 ].
3.4. Clinical Outcomes
3.4.1. Safety
The safety of CAR-T therapy was evaluated in several studies, with data available for both outpatient and inpatient settings [ 37 , 39 , 42 , 53 , 67 ]. In total, 5 publications provided safety data for both settings while 10 publications reported data solely on patients treated in the outpatient setting. In the publications reporting data for both settings, the frequency of AEs was generally comparable or higher for patients who received CAR-T in the inpatient setting. Two publications by Denlinger (2022) [ 53 ] and Sehgal (2022) [ 39 ] reported a higher frequency of CRS in patients who received CAR-T in the inpatient setting whereas the other three publications found similar rates of CRS between the two cohorts. The OUTREACH and ELARA trials reported other AEs, including infections, leukopenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia. In the OUTREACH trial, the incidence of infections was comparable between the outpatient and inpatient settings, with 33% and 32% of patients experiencing infections, respectively. Additionally, prolonged cytopenia at the Day 29 visit was also consistent between outpatient and inpatient settings, with 33% and 32% of patients affected, respectively. In the ELARA trial, the incidence of infections was lower in the outpatient setting compared with the inpatient setting, with any grade infections reported in 17.6% of outpatient versus 21.3% of inpatient cohorts. Although none of the patients in the outpatient group experienced a Grade 3–4 infection, 7.5% of those in the inpatient group experienced such severe infections. Furthermore, the ELARA trial indicated a higher occurrence of hematological disorders in the inpatient setting, with any grade cytopenia reported in 77.5% of inpatient compared with 64.7% of outpatient administration groups. Similarly, the occurrence of Grade 3–4 cytopenia was lower in the outpatient group (47.1%) versus the inpatient group (73.8%). Three publications reported a higher frequency of neurologic toxicities among patients who received CAR-T in the inpatient setting [ 39 , 53 , 67 ]. Conversely, one publication by Abramson (2020) [ 42 ] reported a substantially higher frequency of neurologic toxicities among patients who received CAR-T in the outpatient setting ( Table 3 ). Most of the publications pertaining to only the outpatient cohort reported high frequencies of CRS-related (40–92%) and neurologic (6–57%) toxicities [ 45 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 51 , 55 , 57 , 59 , 60 , 63 ]. Detailed safety outcomes are presented in Table 4 . For studies involving CAR-T treatment in both inpatient and outpatient settings, three publications reported no deaths from CRS and neurological toxicities [ 37 , 39 , 42 ]. For studies based on treatment in only the outpatient setting, Turtle et al. reported a 5% mortality rate, with most deaths occurring during the dose-finding phase, primarily due to CRS and neurological events [ 51 ].
3.4.2. Efficacy: Response and Survival Outcomes
In the studies reporting response outcomes from both settings, the overall response rate (ORR) was found to be comparable between patients managed in the outpatient setting (ORR, 80–82%) and those managed in the inpatient setting (ORR, 72–80%) [ 36 , 37 , 39 , 42 ]. In the OUTREACH trial, the ORR was 82% in the outpatient cohort and 76% in the inpatient cohort [ 36 , 37 ]. In the PILOT trial, the ORR was 80% in both outpatient and inpatient groups [ 39 ]. In the TRANSCEND NHL 001 trial, the ORR was 80% in the outpatient cohort and 72% in the inpatient cohort [ 42 ]. The response rates observed in real-world studies (43–88%) were lower than those observed in clinical trials (80–100%) for patients managed in the outpatient setting. The median duration of response was found to range from 8.2 to 15.1 months among the CAR-T–treated patients managed in the outpatient setting and were comparable to the duration of response in those managed in the inpatient setting (12.1 to 14.8 months) ( Table 5 ) [ 36 , 37 , 39 ]. Progression-free survival (PFS) data for patients managed in the outpatient setting were reported in a limited number of studies. In the OUTREACH trial, patients receiving treatment in the outpatient setting had a 12-month PFS rate of 41% which was similar to the rate observed in an inpatient setting (39%). In the ELARA trial, the 12-month PFS rate was 60% for patients in the outpatient group compared with 70% for patients receiving treatment in an inpatient setting ( Table 6 ) [ 37 , 39 , 42 , 63 , 67 ]. Similarly, the overall survival (OS) data for patients managed in the outpatient setting were limited. The Kaplan–Meier estimates for 12-month OS ranged from 60% to 75% among patients with lymphoma managed in the outpatient setting and were reported to be 60% among those managed in the inpatient setting [ 37 , 39 , 47 , 60 , 63 ]. Notably, a real-world study reported a median OS of 26.5 months in patients with lymphoma managed in the outpatient setting ( Table 7 ) [ 60 ].
3.4.3. Quality of Life
Linhares et al. (2022) reported QoL assessments in patients treated with CAR-T therapy at multiple time points, including pre-treatment (baseline), on day of infusion, on several dates after infusion (days 29, 50, 90, 180, 270, 365, 545, and 730/end of study), and at disease progression and assessed the least squares (LS) mean change from the baseline for visits with ≥10 patients. Both the outpatient and inpatient groups exhibited comparable meaningful improvements in various aspects of QoL, including global health status/QoL, fatigue, pain, assessed by EORTC-QLQ-C30, and the EuroQol 5-Level 5-Dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) visual analog scale (VAS) scores ( Table 8 ) [ 38 ].
3.5. Economic Outcomes
3.5.1. Direct Costs
Seven studies reported costs/reimbursement amounts associated with CAR-T administration in both outpatient and inpatient settings in the United States ( Table 9 ) [ 26 , 41 , 52 , 53 , 62 , 65 , 67 ]. Of these, six reported that the post-infusion costs were lower for patients who received CAR-T in an outpatient setting compared with those who received it in an inpatient setting [ 41 , 52 , 53 , 62 , 65 , 67 ]. Costs in the 6-month post-infusion period reported from TRANSCEND NHL 001, OUTREACH, TRANSFORM, and PILOT trials revealed to be two to four times greater costs in the inpatient setting—these ranged from USD 61,772 to USD 96,297. Pooled analysis of TRANSCEND NHL 001 and OUTREACH trials similarly showed a lower 6-month post-infusion cost in the outpatient setting (USD 36,702) compared with the inpatient setting (USD 89,535) [ 52 ]. The main driver for the higher costs in the inpatient setting was identified to be hospitalization costs [ 41 , 52 , 65 ]. Yang et al. (2022), the only study that assessed the Medicare reimbursement amount, including CAR-T product costs, reported that costs in the first month were nominally higher in the outpatient cohort compared with the inpatient cohort and were comparable in subsequent months [ 26 ].
3.5.2. Healthcare Resource Utilization
The analysis of HCRU among patients who received CAR-T in the outpatient setting was reported in 17 publications [ 26 , 37 , 39 , 41 , 46 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 57 , 59 , 60 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 67 , 68 ]. Of these, 10 also reported data for patients who received CAR-T in the inpatient setting ( Table 10 ) [ 26 , 37 , 39 , 41 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 62 , 67 , 68 ]. Most of the HCRU data were related to inpatient admissions, length of stay (LOS), and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions. Some publications also reported a median time to hospitalization for the outpatient cohort, ranging from 4 to 9 days [ 37 , 39 , 52 , 55 , 57 , 64 , 67 ]. Chihara et al. (2022) and Wright et al. (2020) reported lower rates of unplanned hospitalization (defined as post-CAR-T infusion in the outpatient cohort and re-hospitalizations in the inpatient cohort) in the inpatient cohort [ 54 , 68 ]. Despite such higher unplanned hospitalization observed in the outpatient cohort, the overall HCRU was lower for the outpatient cohort in publications that reported data for both cohorts. Most studies reported higher overall mean LOS for the inpatient cohort, with two to three times longer durations compared with the outpatient cohort across studies [ 26 , 37 , 39 , 41 , 52 , 53 , 62 , 67 ]. Additionally, ICU utilization was found to be higher for the inpatient vs. outpatient cohort, as shown by Fowler et al. (2022) (9% vs. 0%), Palomba et al. (2020) (7% vs. 6%), and Sehgal et al. (2022) (20% vs. 5%) [ 26 , 41 , 52 , 53 , 62 , 65 , 67 ]. Similarly, the mean ICU LOS was two to three times higher for the inpatient cohort across studies, except the study by Sehgal et al. (2022) which reported a lower ratio (0.8) of ICU LOS for the inpatient cohort [ 39 ]. Additional HCRU data available in the identified studies are presented in Table S7 .
4. Discussion
This comprehensive SLR on CAR-T therapies in patients with hematological cancer highlights the potential benefits of outpatient compared with inpatient administration. Safety outcomes, a key consideration in CAR-T treatments and a principal driver for traditionally treating patients in the inpatient setting, were comparable between those treated in the outpatient setting and those treated in the inpatient setting. Moreover, the analysis revealed comparable effectiveness outcomes between the two settings, including the response rates, duration of response, and survival outcomes where reported. Furthermore, both outpatient and inpatient cohorts experienced meaningful improvements in QoL measures. These findings collectively provide compelling evidence to clinicians and other decision-makers to actively consider administering CAR-T therapies in the outpatient setting for patients whose disease and clinical characteristics permit this. Treating institutions may upgrade their processes and protocols to encourage treatment in the outpatient setting, including preparing for and managing early complications.
In the reviewed studies, the choice of outpatient administration was at the investigator’s discretion, taking into account patient disease characteristics, clinical status, and logistical considerations, such as the availability of caregiver support and the ability to remain within a short distance from the treatment site for 30 days after infusion [ 32 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 ]. Typically, patients receiving CAR-T therapy in the outpatient setting are closely monitored by a multidisciplinary CAR-T therapy team and adhere to standard operating procedures for outpatient AE monitoring and management [ 32 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 66 , 67 ].
To further bolster the case for outpatient administration of CAR-T therapies, assessment of such administration in the real world with longer-term follow-up to allow for the evaluation of survival outcomes such as PFS and OS is warranted. These endpoints are crucial in evaluating the long-term benefits and potential risks associated with the two treatment settings [ 69 ].
The observed enhancement in QoL reported by Linhares et al. (2022) likely represents the comprehensive impact of CAR-T therapy on hematological cancer patients, regardless of the treatment setting [ 38 ]. Further research is needed to explore the underlying factors contributing to the improvement in QoL, paying particular attention to factors related to reduced hospitalization as this could enhance the overall patient experience and improve their QoL during treatment. It is also important to evaluate QoL at multiple time points after CAR-T therapy use and examine if the resolution of AEs reflects improved QoL outcomes. Furthermore, the utilization of other measures, such as the hospital anxiety and depression scale depression subscale (HADS-D), in patients with hematological cancer is important in understanding and addressing their mental health needs more specifically [ 70 ]. Additionally, a previous SLR emphasized the importance of identifying patients’ preferences for involvement in cancer treatment decisions. Establishing these preferences will encourage the healthcare system to become more responsive to individual patient needs and expectations and ultimately, contribute to improving their QoL [ 71 ].
The economic outcomes indicate that outpatient treatment may offer cost advantages over inpatient treatment, with patients treated in the latter incurring two to four times higher costs (USD 62,000–96,000) than by outpatient-treated patients (USD 16,000–38,000) [ 41 , 52 , 65 ]. The lower costs observed in the outpatient cohort were primarily driven by reduced hospitalization costs [ 41 , 62 , 65 , 67 ]. These findings align with an economic evaluation of CAR-T therapy based on the site of care, wherein outpatient CAR-T administration resulted in a substantial decrease in total costs (by 40.4%), with notable reductions observed in hospitalization, office visits, and procedural expenses [ 72 ]. However, a study by Yang (2022) found that the Medicare reimbursement in the outpatient cohort was slightly higher than that in the inpatient cohort during the first month post-infusion and comparable in subsequent months. The authors, however, attributed this to the inadequate reimbursement for CAR-T infusion in the inpatient setting whereas the outpatient setting reimbursement, which is covered under Medicare Part B, covers not only the CAR-T product cost more completely but also the handling, storage, and a portion of the physician’s service fees. Additional efforts are recommended to improve the reimbursement structure and care policies for CAR-T therapy in either infusion setting to suitably incentivize providers [ 26 ].
The outpatient cohort experienced more unplanned hospitalizations, with CRS being the main reason for hospitalization. However, the overall HCRU was lower in cases where data were available for both settings as the inpatient cohort exhibited longer stays and a higher HCRU [ 26 , 37 , 39 , 41 , 46 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 59 , 60 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 67 , 68 ]. An improved understanding of the predictive risk factors for CRS and neurotoxicity development, including patient disease characteristics and clinical status, can influence personalized decisions regarding outpatient administration as it may offer potential benefits in terms of overall resource utilization.
Outpatient CAR-T administration can potentially expand treatment access by freeing up inpatient capacity and addressing geographic obstacles. A prior economic model concluded that lower costs through outpatient administration could enable more patients to receive treatment with limited resources. [ 72 ].
This review provides a comprehensive analysis of both clinical and economic outcomes derived from clinical trials and observational studies concerning CAR-T therapies in a broad patient population with hematological cancer. The review was conducted in accordance with a predefined protocol, with clear inclusion and exclusion criteria, and adhered to the Cochrane guidelines for systematic review reporting. A comprehensive search strategy was employed to minimize reporting bias in the review process.
While this SLR adhered to rigorous selection criteria, it had some limitations. The included studies exhibited heterogeneity in terms of methodology and populations, which prevented direct comparisons. Additionally, in studies that reported outcomes related to the two settings, patients were not randomized between the settings, introducing the potential for bias and raising concerns about the comparability of reported outcomes. In line with the objective of this study, outcomes data were presented here only if reported by setting. The molecular aspect of the therapy has not been discussed as none of the identified publications referred to it as either the driver for the decision of inpatient vs. outpatient administration or as the cause of any difference in the outcomes. Furthermore, patient characteristics were not available for all the studies as the majority of the identified publications were conference abstracts with minimal information on patient characteristics.
5. Conclusions
Findings from our study showed comparable overall outcomes in safety, efficacy, and QoL between outpatient and inpatient CAR-T administration. While CAR-Ts are typically administered in an inpatient setting, outpatient administration of CAR-T can provide a reduced economic burden without negatively impacting clinical outcomes and should be actively considered where patient disease characteristics and logistical considerations permit this. Future research is needed to explore the impact of administration settings of new CAR-T therapies on patients with multiple myeloma and other hematological cancers.
Acknowledgments
The writing support was provided by Mohammed Alshaikheid from Putnam Associates, UK.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/cancers15245746/s1 . Table S1. MEDLINE search strategy; Table S2. Embase search strategy; Table S3. Cochrane search strategy; Table S4. Quality assessment of randomized controlled trial using the Risk-of-Bias version 2 checklist; Table S5. Quality assessment of non-randomized clinical trials (single-arm) using Downs and Black checklist; Table S6. Quality assessment of observational studies (single-arm and double-arm) using the NOS checklist; Table S7. Additional healthcare resource utilization data available in identified studies.
Click here for additional data file.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, D.K.H., Y.-H.L., K.C.D.B. and S.H.; methodology, D.K.H., Y.-H.L., S.R., H.B., R.P., L.M., K.C.D.B. and S.H.; software, S.R., H.B. and R.P.; validation, Y.-H.L., S.R., H.B. and R.P.; formal analysis, Y.-H.L., S.R., H.B. and R.P.; investigation, D.K.H., Y.-H.L., S.R., H.B., R.P., L.M., K.C.D.B. and S.H.; resources, S.H.; data curation, S.R., H.B. and R.P.; writing—original draft preparation, D.K.H., Y.-H.L., S.R., H.B., R.P., L.M., K.C.D.B. and S.H.; writing—review and editing, D.K.H., Y.-H.L., S.R., H.B., R.P., L.M., K.C.D.B. and S.H.; visualization, S.R., H.B. and R.P.; supervision, D.K.H., K.C.D.B. and S.H.; project administration, Y.-H.L., R.P. and S.H.; funding acquisition, S.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Data Availability Statement
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article (and its Supplementary Information Files ).
Conflicts of Interest
D.K.H. is a member of the Bristol-Myers Squibb IMW Ide-Cel Academic Advisory Board, Bristol-Myers Squibb Multiple Myeloma ASH Steering Committee, and Multiple Myeloma Pfizer Advisory Board; received honoraria for Onc Live and Survivorship; received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Karyopharm, International Myeloma Society Young Investigator Award, and the Pentecost Family Myeloma Research Center; and has consulted with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Karyopharm, Janssen, and Pfizer. Y.L. is an employee of Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC. S.R., H.B., and R.P. are employees of Putnam Associates. L.M. is an employee of Legend Biotech and holds stock in the company. K.D.B. is an employee of Janssen Biotech, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, holds Johnson & Johnson stock, and has a patent planned, issued, or pending. S.H. is an employee of Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, and holds Johnson & Johnson stock.
References
1. Du M. Chen W. Liu K. Wang L. Hu Y. Mao Y. Sun X. Luo Y. Shi J. Shao K. The Global Burden of Leukemia and Its Attributable Factors in 204 Countries and Territories: Findings from the Global Burden of Disease 2019 Study and Projections to 2030 J. Oncol. 2022 2022 1612702 10.1155/2022/1612702 35509847 PMC9061017
2. Sung H. Ferlay J. Siegel R.L. Laversanne M. Soerjomataram I. Jemal A. Bray F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries CA Cancer J. Clin. 2021 71 209 249 10.3322/caac.21660 33538338
3. Allart-Vorelli P. Porro B. Baguet F. Michel A. Cousson-Gélie F. Haematological cancer and quality of life: A systematic literature review Blood Cancer J. 2015 5 e305 10.1038/bcj.2015.29 25909835 PMC4450328
4. La Nasa G. Caocci G. Morelli E. Massa E. Farci A. Deiana L. Pintus E. Scartozzi M. Sancassiani F. Health Related Quality of Life in Patients with Onco-hematological Diseases Clin. Pract. Epidemiol. Ment. Health 2020 16 174 179 10.2174/1745017902016010174 32874192 PMC7431682
5. Burns R. Leal J. Sullivan R. Luengo-Fernandez R. Economic burden of malignant blood disorders across Europe: A population-based cost analysis Lancet Haematol. 2016 3 e362 e370 10.1016/S2352-3026(16)30062-X 27476787
6. Yucel E. Zhang S. Panjabi S. Health-Related and Economic Burden Among Family Caregivers of Patients with Acute Myeloid Leukemia or Hematological Malignancies Adv. Ther. 2021 38 5002 5024 10.1007/s12325-021-01872-x 34499319 PMC8478752
7. Sochacka-Ćwikła A. Mączyński M. Regiec A. FDA-Approved Drugs for Hematological Malignancies-The Last Decade Review Cancers 2021 14 87 10.3390/cancers14010087 35008250 PMC8750348
8. Sterner R.C. Sterner R.M. CAR-T cell therapy: Current limitations and potential strategies Blood Cancer J. 2021 11 69 10.1038/s41408-021-00459-7 33824268 PMC8024391
9. Lei W. Xie M. Jiang Q. Xu N. Li P. Liang A. Young K.H. Qian W. Treatment-Related Adverse Events of Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell (CAR T) in Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Cancers 2021 13 3912 10.3390/cancers13153912 34359816 PMC8345443
10. Parikh R.H. Lonial S. Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy in multiple myeloma: A comprehensive review of current data and implications for clinical practice CA Cancer J. Clin. 2023 73 275 285 10.3322/caac.21771 36627265
11. Chimeric Antigen Receptor CAR T Cell Therapy Cancer Treatment Market Size Report Available online: https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2022/06/25/2469076/0/en/Chimeric-Antigen-Receptor-CAR-T-Cell-Therapy-Cancer-Treatment-Market-Size-Report.html (accessed on 18 July 2023)
12. Facts about Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T-Cell Therapy Available online: https://www.lls.org/sites/default/files/2021-05/FSHP1_CART_Factsheet_Sept2020_Rev.pdf (accessed on 18 July 2023)
13. Barros L.R.C. Couto S.C.F. da Silva Santurio D. Paixão E.A. Cardoso F. da Silva V.J. Klinger P. Ribeiro P. Rós F.A. Oliveira T.G.M. Systematic Review of Available CAR-T Cell Trials around the World Cancers 2022 14 2667 10.3390/cancers14112667 35681646 PMC9179563
14. Maude S. Barrett D.M. Current status of chimeric antigen receptor therapy for haematological malignancies Br. J. Haematol. 2016 172 11 22 10.1111/bjh.13792 26560054
15. Davila M.L. Riviere I. Wang X. Bartido S. Park J. Curran K. Chung S.S. Stefanski J. Borquez-Ojeda O. Olszewska M. Efficacy and toxicity management of 19-28z CAR T cell therapy in B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia Sci. Transl. Med. 2014 6 224ra225 10.1126/scitranslmed.3008226 24553386 PMC4684949
16. Lee D.W. Kochenderfer J.N. Stetler-Stevenson M. Cui Y.K. Delbrook C. Feldman S.A. Fry T.J. Orentas R. Sabatino M. Shah N.N. T cells expressing CD19 chimeric antigen receptors for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia in children and young adults: A phase 1 dose-escalation trial Lancet 2015 385 517 528 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61403-3 25319501 PMC7065359
17. Quintás-Cardama A. CD19 directed CAR T cell therapy in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma Oncotarget 2018 9 29843 29844 10.18632/oncotarget.25688 30042816 PMC6057459
18. Qu X. An G. Sui W. Wang T. Zhang X. Yang J. Zhang Y. Zhang L. Zhu D. Huang J. Phase 1 study of C-CAR088, a novel humanized anti-BCMA CAR T-cell therapy in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma J. Immunother. Cancer 2022 10 e005145 10.1136/jitc-2022-005145 36100310 PMC9472147
19. Gagelmann N. Riecken K. Wolschke C. Berger C. Ayuk F.A. Fehse B. Kröger N. Development of CAR-T cell therapies for multiple myeloma Leukemia 2020 34 2317 2332 10.1038/s41375-020-0930-x 32572190
20. Berdeja J.G. Madduri D. Usmani S.Z. Jakubowiak A. Agha M. Cohen A.D. Stewart A.K. Hari P. Htut M. Lesokhin A. Ciltacabtagene autoleucel, a B-cell maturation antigen-directed chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (CARTITUDE-1): A phase 1b/2 open-label study Lancet 2021 398 314 324 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00933-8 34175021
21. San-Miguel J. Dhakal B. Yong K. Spencer A. Anguille S. Mateos M.V. Fernández de Larrea C. Martínez-López J. Moreau P. Touzeau C. Cilta-cel or Standard Care in Lenalidomide-Refractory Multiple Myeloma N. Engl. J. Med. 2023 389 335 347 10.1056/NEJMoa2303379 37272512
22. Myers G.D. Verneris M.R. Goy A. Maziarz R.T. Perspectives on outpatient administration of CAR-T cell therapy in aggressive B-cell lymphoma and acute lymphoblastic leukemia J. Immunother. Cancer 2021 9 e002056 10.1136/jitc-2020-002056 33846220 PMC8047987
23. Bachier C. Palomba M. Abramson J. Andreadis C. Sehgal A. Godwin J. Hildebrandt G. Siddiqi T. Stevens D. Farazi T. Outpatient Treatment with Lisocabtagene Maraleucel (liso-cel) in 3 Ongoing Clinical Studies in Relapsed/Refractory (R/R) Large B Cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL), Including Second-Line Transplant Noneligible (TNE) Patients: Transcend NHL 001, Outreach, and PILOT Biol. Blood Marrow Transplant. 2020 26 S25 S26 10.1016/j.bbmt.2019.12.093
24. Maude S.L. Laetsch T.W. Buechner J. Rives S. Boyer M. Bittencourt H. Bader P. Verneris M.R. Stefanski H.E. Myers G.D. Tisagenlecleucel in Children and Young Adults with B-Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia N. Engl. J. Med. 2018 378 439 448 10.1056/NEJMoa1709866 29385370 PMC5996391
25. Schuster S. Tam C. Borchmann P. Jaeger U. Waller E. Holte H. McGuirk J. Jaglowski S. Tobinai K. Andreadis C. Sustained Disease Control for Adult Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: An Updated Analysis of Juliet, a Global Pivotal Phase 2 Trial of Tisagenlecleucel Blood 2018 132 1684 10.1182/blood-2018-99-115252
26. Yang H. Bollu V. Lim S. Tesfaye M. Dalal A.A. Lax A. Sethi S. Zhao J. Healthcare resource use and reimbursement amount by site of care in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma receiving chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy–a retrospective cohort study using CMS 100% Medicare claims database Leuk. Lymphoma 2022 64 339 348 10.1080/10428194.2022.2147395 36408973
27. Page M.J. McKenzie J.E. Bossuyt P.M. Boutron I. Hoffmann T.C. Mulrow C.D. Shamseer L. Tetzlaff J.M. Akl E.A. Brennan S.E. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews BMJ 2021 372 n71 10.1136/bmj.n71 33782057 PMC8005924
28. Higgins J.P.T. Thomas J. Chandler J. Cumpston M. Li T. Page M.J. Welch V.A. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.3 (Updated February 2022) Cochrane London, UK 2022 Available online: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook (accessed on 18 July 2023)
29. Sterne J.A.C. Savović J. Page M.J. Elbers R.G. Blencowe N.S. Boutron I. Cates C.J. Cheng H.Y. Corbett M.S. Eldridge S.M. RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials BMJ 2019 366 l4898 10.1136/bmj.l4898 31462531
30. Downs S.H. Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions J. Epidemiol. Community Health 1998 52 377 384 10.1136/jech.52.6.377 9764259 PMC1756728
31. Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment form for Cohort and Case-Control Studies Available online: https://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/nosgen.pdf (accessed on 18 July 2023)
32. Godwin J. Freytes C.O. Maris M. Stevens D.A. Hoda D. Mattar B. Varela J.C. Cherry M. Essell J. Courtright J. Outcomes of Treatment with the Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T Cell Therapy Lisocabtagene Maraleucel (liso-cel) at Nonuniversity Medical Centers (NMCs): Initial Results from the Outreach Study in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory (R/R) Large B-Cell Lymphoma (LBCL) Transplant. Cell Ther. 2021 27 S203 S204
33. Godwin J.E. Freytes C.O. Maris M. Stevens D.A. Hoda D. Mattar B. Varela J.C. Cherry M. Essell J. Courtright J. Outcomes of Treatment with the Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T Cell Therapy Lisocabtagene Maraleucel (liso-cel) in the Nonuniversity Setting: Initial Results from the Outreach Study Blood 2020 136 50 52 10.1182/blood-2020-136640
34. Godwin J.E. Mattar B. Maris M. Bachier C. Stevens D.A. Hoda D. Varela J.C. Cherry M. Fanning S. Essell J. Outreach: Preliminary safety & efficacy results from a phase 2 study of lisocabtagene maraleucel (LISO-CEL) in the nonuniversity setting Hematol. Oncol. 2021 39 368 370 10.1002/hon.185_2880
35. Godwin J.E. Mattar B.I. Maris M.B. Bachier C.R. Stevens D.A. Hoda D. Varela J.C. Cherry M. Fanning S.R. Essell J.H. Outreach: Preliminary safety and efficacy results from a phase 2 study of lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) in the non university setting J. Clin. Oncol. 2021 39 e19513 10.1200/JCO.2021.39.15_suppl.e19513
36. Godwin J.E. Mattar B. Maris M. Bachier C. Stevens D. Hoda D. Varela J.C. Cherry M. Fanning S. Essell J. Outreach: Results from a Phase 2 Study of Lisocabtagene Maraleucel (liso-cel) Administered As Inpatient (Inpt) or Outpatient (Outpt) Treatment in the Nonuniversity Setting in Patients (Pts) with R/R Large B-Cell Lymphoma (LBCL) Blood 2021 138 1762 10.1182/blood-2021-148792
37. Linhares Y. Freytes C. Cherry M. Bachier C. Maris M. Hoda D. Varela J.C. Bellomo C. Cross S. Essell J. Results from Outreach: A Phase 2 Study of Lisocabtagene Maraleucel (Liso-cel) Administered As Outpatient (Outpt) or Inpatient (Inpt) Treatment in the Community/Nonuniversity Setting in Patients (Pts) with Relapsed or Refractory (R/R) Large B-Cell Lymphoma (LBCL) Blood 2022 140 10416 10418 10.1182/blood-2022-159595
38. Linhares Y. Liu F.F. Freytes C. Cherry M. Shi L. Liao W. Braverman J. Espinola R. Vedal M. Mattar B. Lisocabtagene Maraleucel (Liso-cel) in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory (R/R) Large B-Cell Lymphoma (LBCL) Treated As Outpatients or Inpatients in the Community/Nonuniversity Setting: Patient-Reported Outcomes/Health-Related Quality of Life from the Outreach Study Blood 2022 140 10930 10931 10.1182/blood-2022-159645
39. Sehgal A. Hoda D. Riedell P.A. Ghosh N. Hamadani M. Hildebrandt G.C. Godwin J.E. Reagan P.M. Wagner-Johnston N. Essell J. Lisocabtagene maraleucel as second-line therapy in adults with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma who were not intended for haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (PILOT): An open-label, phase 2 study Lancet Oncol. 2022 23 1066 1077 10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00339-4 35839786
40. Sehgal A.R. Godwin J. Pribble J. Wang L. Thorpe J. Hildebrandt G.C. Lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) for treatment of second-line transplant noneligible (TNE) relapsed/refractory (R/R) aggressive non-hodgkin lymphoma (NHL): Initial results from the PILOT Study Blood 2019 134 2882 10.1182/blood-2019-127658
41. McGarvey N. Gitlin M. Lee A. Keating S. Post-infusion monitoring costs by site of care among patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma who received second-line treatment with lisocabtagene maraleucel in the PILOT study J. Manag. Care Spec. Pharm. 2022 28 S32 S33
42. Abramson J.S. Palomba M.L. Gordon L.I. Lunning M.A. Wang M. Arnason J. Mehta A. Purev E. Maloney D.G. Andreadis C. Lisocabtagene maraleucel for patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphomas (TRANSCEND NHL 001): A multicentre seamless design study Lancet 2020 396 839 852 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31366-0 32888407
43. Maloney D.G. Abramson J.S. Palomba M.L. Gordon L.I. Lunning M.A. Arnason J.E. Wang M. Forero A. Albertson T. Garcia J. Preliminary Safety Profile of the CD19-Directed Defined Composition CAR T Cell Product JCAR017 in Relapsed/Refractory Aggressive B-NHL Patients: Potential for Outpatient Administration Blood 2017 130 1552 10.1182/blood.V130.Suppl_1.1552.1552
44. Palomba M.L. Garcia J. Wang L. Dehner C. Chung K.C. Maloney D.G. TRANSCEND: Lisocabtagene Maraleucel (liso-cel; JCAR017) Healthcare Resource Utilization in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) Blood 2018 132 3545 10.1182/blood-2018-99-119387
45. Gofshteyn J.S. Shaw P.A. Teachey D.T. Grupp S.A. Maude S. Banwell B. Chen F. Lacey S.F. Melenhorst J.J. Edmonson M.J. Neurotoxicity after CTL019 in a pediatric and young adult cohort Ann. Neurol. 2018 84 537 546 10.1002/ana.25315 30178481 PMC6444896
46. Myers R.M. Fitzgerald J.C. DiNofia A. Wray L. Leahy A.B. Li Y. Smith L.T. Burrows E.K. Ramos M. Motley L.S. Inpatient and intensive care unit resource utilization after CD19-targeted chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CART19) for pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) Biol. Blood Marrow Transplant. 2020 26 S202 S203 10.1016/j.bbmt.2019.12.695
47. Shadman M. Yeung C. Redman M. Lee S.Y. Lee D.H. Ra S. Ujjani C.S. Dezube B.J. Poh C. Warren E.H. Safety and Efficacy of Third Generation CD20 Targeted CAR-T (MB-106) for Treatment of Relapsed/Refractory B-NHL and CLL Blood 2021 138 3872 10.1182/blood-2021-149181
48. Shadman M. Yeung C. Redman M.W. Lee S.Y. Lee D.H. Ramachandran A. Ra S. Marzbani E.A. Graf S.A. Warren E.H. Third Generation CD20 Targeted CAR T-Cell Therapy (MB-106) for Treatment of Patients with Relapsed/Refractory B-Cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Blood 2020 136 38 39 10.1182/blood-2020-136440
49. Shadman M. Yeung C. Redman M. Lee S. Lee D. Ra S. Ramachandran A. Lynch R. Smith S. Poh C. Immunotherapy Using a 3rd Generation CD20 Targeted CAR T-Cell (MB-106) for Treatment of B-Cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (B-NHL) and Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) HemaSphere 2021 5 335
50. Shadman M. Yeung C. Redman M. Lee S.Y. Lee D.H. Ra S. Qian D. Ujjani C. Dezube B. Poh C. Efficacy and safety of a third generation CD20 CART (MB-106) for treatment of Relapsed/Refractory Follicular Lymphoma (FL) HemaSphere 2022 6 108 109 10.1097/01.HS9.0000843720.23634.a9
51. Turtle C.J. Hay K.A. Gust J. Hanaff L.A. Li D. Liles W.C. Wurfel M. Harju-Baker S. Myerson D. Gonzalez-Cuyar L. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurotoxicity (NT) after CD19-specific chimeric antigen receptor-(CAR-) modified T cells J. Clin. Oncol. 2017 35 3020 10.1200/JCO.2017.35.15_suppl.3020
52. Palomba M.L. Jun M.P. Garcia J. Lymp J. McGarvey N. Gitlin M. Pelletier C. Nguyen A. Costs of Postinfusion Monitoring By Site of Care for Patients with Relapsed/Refractory (R/R) Large B-Cell Lymphoma (LBCL) Who Received Third-Line or Later Treatment with Lisocabtagene Maraleucel (liso-cel) in the Transcend NHL 001 and Outreach Trials Blood 2020 136 16 17 10.1182/blood-2020-141415
53. Denlinger N. Huang Y. Braunstein Z. Sigmund A. Bajwa A. Kapoor N. Agyeman A. Fisher S. Purdin Z. Neal A. ABCL-509 Healthcare Utilization and Costs in Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy for B-Cell Lymphoma Clin. Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2022 22 S381 S382 10.1016/S2152-2650(22)01544-0
54. Chihara D. Liao L. Tkacz J. Lewing B. Franco A. Kilgore K.M. Nastoupil L.J. Chen L. Real-World Effectiveness and Economic Impact Associated with Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy Among Older Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma in US Blood 2022 140 2421 2423 10.1182/blood-2022-163678
55. Borogovac A. Keruakous A. Bycko M. Chakrabarty J.H. Ibrahimi S. Khawandanah M. Selby G.B. Yuen C. Schmidt S. Autry M.T. Safety and feasibility of outpatient chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy: Experience from a tertiary care center Bone Marrow Transplant. 2022 57 1025 1027 10.1038/s41409-022-01664-z 35411106 PMC8995917
56. Borogovac A. Keruakous A.R. Bycko M. Chakrabarty J.H. Ibrahimi S. Khawandanah M.O. Selby G.B. Yuen C. Schmidt S.A. Al-Juhaishi T. Successful Development of an Outpatient Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T Cell Therapy Program Blood 2021 138 4821 10.1182/blood-2021-153457
57. Shao Y.F. Modi D. Kin A. Alavi A. Ayash L. Ratanatharathorn V. Uberti J.P. Deol A. Feasibility of Outpatient CAR T Cell Therapy: Experience of a Single Institution Blood 2021 138 4828 10.1182/blood-2021-146283
58. Zhao J. Bollu V. Yang H. Dalal A. Tesfaye M. Ma Q. Lax A. Lim S. Healthcare resource use (HRU) by infusion setting of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) in patients with relapsed and refractory (r/r) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL): A retrospective cohort study using CMS 100% Medicare database J. Clin. Oncol. 2021 39 e19550 10.1200/JCO.2021.39.15_suppl.e19550
59. Farooqui N. Sy-Go J.P.T. Miao J. Mehta R. Vaughan L.E. Bennani N.N. Wang Y. Bansal R. Hathcock M.A. Hayman S.R. Incidence and Risk Factors for Acute Kidney Injury After Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy Mayo Clin. Proc. 2022 97 1294 1304 10.1016/j.mayocp.2022.05.018 35787856 PMC9703303
60. Nasta S.D. Hughes M.E. Namoglu E.C. Garfall A. DiFilippo H. Ballard H.J. Barta S.K. Chong E.A. Frey N.V. Gerson J.N. Outcomes of Tisagenlecleucel in Lymphoma Patients With Predominant Management in an Ambulatory Setting Clin. Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2022 22 e730 e737 10.1016/j.clml.2022.04.012 35595619 PMC10965010
61. Maziarz R. Yang H. Liu Q. Zhao J. Lee S. Dalal A. Lim S. Bollu V. Real-world healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with tisagenlecleucel and axicabtagene ciloleucel among patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: An analysis of hospital data J. Manag. Care Spec. Pharm. 2021 27 S37 S38 10.1080/10428194.2022.2060503 35422192
62. Maziarz R.T. Yang H. Liu Q. Wang T. Zhao J. Lim S. Lee S. Dalal A. Bollu V. Real-world healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with tisagenlecleucel and axicabtagene ciloleucel among patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: An analysis of hospital data in the United States Leuk. Lymphoma 2022 63 2052 2062 10.1080/10428194.2022.2060503 35422192
63. Kirby S. Hoda D. Hunter B. Successful Outpatient Treatment and Monitoring Following Administration of Various Anti-CD19 Chimeric Antigen Receptor Therapies in B-Cell Lymphomas Blood 2022 140 10812 10813 10.1182/blood-2022-168207
64. Kamdar M. Solomon S.R. Arnason J. Johnston P.B. Glass B. Bachanova V. Ibrahimi S. Mielke S. Mutsaers P. Hernandez-Ilizaliturri F. Lisocabtagene maraleucel versus standard of care with salvage chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation as second-line treatment in patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (TRANSFORM): Results from an interim analysis of an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial Lancet 2022 399 2294 2308 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00662-6 35717989
65. McGarvey N. Gitlin M. Lee A. Keating S. Post-infusion monitoring costs by site of care among patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma who received second-line treatment with lisocabtagene maraleucel in the TRANSFORM study J. Manag. Care Spec. Pharm. 2022 28 S33
66. Fowler N.H. Dickinson M. Ghosh M. Chen A. Andreadis C. Tiwari R. Masood A. Ramos R. Bollu V. Jousseaume E. Assessment of Healthcare Resource Utilization and Costs in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Follicular Lymphoma Undergoing CAR-T Cell Therapy with Tisagenlecleucel: Results from the Elara Study Blood 2021 138 3533 10.1182/blood-2021-145741 36182104
67. Fowler N.H. Dickinson M. Ghosh M. Chen A.I. Andreadis C. Tiwari R. Masood A. Ramos R. Jousseaume E. Thieblemont C. Assessment of Healthcare Resource Utilization and Hospitalization Costs in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Follicular Lymphoma Undergoing CAR-T Cell Therapy With Tisagenlecleucel: Results From the ELARA Study Transplant. Cell Ther. 2023 29 60.e61 60.e64 10.1016/j.jtct.2022.09.022 36182104
68. Wright C. Anstadt E. Baron J. LaRiviere M. LaRose M. Landsburg D. Svoboda J. Nasta S. Gerson J. Barta S. Impact of Radiotherapy on Hospitalization Burden Surrounding Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2020 108 E51 E52 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.02.590
69. Delgado A. Guddati A.K. Clinical endpoints in oncology—A primer Am. J. Cancer Res. 2021 11 1121 1131 33948349 PMC8085844
70. Senf B. Grabowski K. Spielmann N. Fettel J. Quality of life and distress assessed with self and external assessment screening tools in patients with hematologic malignancies attending treatment in an acute hospital Qual. Life Res. 2020 29 3375 3385 10.1007/s11136-020-02602-6 32815114 PMC7686164
71. Hubbard G. Kidd L. Donaghy E. Preferences for involvement in treatment decision making of patients with cancer: A review of the literature Eur. J. Oncol. Nurs. 2008 12 299 318 10.1016/j.ejon.2008.03.004 18486552
72. Lyman G.H. Nguyen A. Snyder S. Gitlin M. Chung K.C. Economic Evaluation of Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy by Site of Care Among Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Large B-Cell Lymphoma JAMA Netw. Open 2020 3 e202072 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.2072 32250433 PMC7136832