American journal of clinical oncology · 2025
Efficacy and Safety of Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR)-T Cell Therapy in Patients with Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jamil Abdur, Qureshi Zaheer, Siddique Rimsha, Altaf Faryal, Akram Hamzah, Jamil Rohma, Aslam Shehroz, Selene Insija I
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHL) are a diverse group of lymphoproliferative malignancies, often more unpredictable than Hodgkin lymphomas, with a higher likelihood of extranodal spread. NHL's resistance to standard chemotherapy has increased, leading to a growing interest in personalized treatments like chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies (CAR-TCT).
METHODS: A literature search was conducted across PubMed, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library for studies on CAR-TCT in NHL treatment published until July 2024. The outcomes assessed included overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs). Data were pooled using RevMan 5.41 and Comprehensive Meta-analysis 3.
RESULTS: Out of 532 articles, 8 met the inclusion criteria. CAR-TCT significantly improved OS (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.63-1.00; P =0.05) and PFS (HR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.36-0.58; P <0.00001) compared with standard chemotherapy. However, EFS was not significantly different (HR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.26-1.09; P =0.09). About 76.6% of NHL patients responded to CAR-TCT, but the ORR was similar between CAR-TCT and standard therapy (MD: 19.23%; 95% CI: -11.34% to 49.80%; P =0.22). Safety analysis found a grade ≥3 AEs incidence comparable to CAR-TCT and standard care. However, CAR-TCT was associated with higher neutropenia risk but lower thrombocytopenia, anemia, and nausea risks.
CONCLUSION: CAR-TCT significantly improves OS and PFS in refractory NHL but does not notably impact EFS. While its ORR is comparable to standard chemotherapy, CAR-TCT has a better safety profile, making it a promising treatment option.
METHODS: A literature search was conducted across PubMed, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library for studies on CAR-TCT in NHL treatment published until July 2024. The outcomes assessed included overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs). Data were pooled using RevMan 5.41 and Comprehensive Meta-analysis 3.
RESULTS: Out of 532 articles, 8 met the inclusion criteria. CAR-TCT significantly improved OS (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.63-1.00; P =0.05) and PFS (HR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.36-0.58; P <0.00001) compared with standard chemotherapy. However, EFS was not significantly different (HR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.26-1.09; P =0.09). About 76.6% of NHL patients responded to CAR-TCT, but the ORR was similar between CAR-TCT and standard therapy (MD: 19.23%; 95% CI: -11.34% to 49.80%; P =0.22). Safety analysis found a grade ≥3 AEs incidence comparable to CAR-TCT and standard care. However, CAR-TCT was associated with higher neutropenia risk but lower thrombocytopenia, anemia, and nausea risks.
CONCLUSION: CAR-TCT significantly improves OS and PFS in refractory NHL but does not notably impact EFS. While its ORR is comparable to standard chemotherapy, CAR-TCT has a better safety profile, making it a promising treatment option.