TCR-JANUS 衔接蛋白实现双特异性靶向以克服 TCR-T 细胞治疗中的肿瘤异质性
TCR-JANUS engager proteins enable bispecific targeting to overcome tumor heterogeneity in TCR-T cell therapy.
基于 T 细胞受体(TCR)的免疫疗法受限于肿瘤抗原异质性,后者常导致复发。
英文原题:Lymphodepleting chemotherapy practices and effect on safety and efficacy outcomes in patients with solid tumours undergoing T cell receptor-engineered T cell (TCR-T) Therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
针对过继性细胞疗法(ACT)研究设计和报告的标准共识指南,将有助于对晚期实体瘤患者优化LD方案进行准确的风险-获益分析。
T细胞受体工程T细胞(TCR-T)疗法在晚期实体瘤中显示出良好的疗效。淋巴细胞清除(LD)化疗可提高TCR-T细胞疗法的疗效,但与显著毒性相关。关于实体瘤中TCR-T细胞疗法的最佳LD方案,证据尚不充分。
对描述晚期实体瘤患者TCR-T细胞治疗前LD实践进行了介入性、前瞻性临床试验的系统综述。目的是明确TCR-T细胞治疗前给予的LD方案及其对该患者群体特定安全性和有效性结局的影响。
检索共返回484项研究,其中19项(231例患者)符合纳入标准。环磷酰胺(cyclo)60 mg/kg每日(2天)联合氟达拉滨(fludara)25 mg/m 2每日(5天)是最常见的LD方案(占研究的38%)。与低剂量LD方案相比,高剂量LD方案与发热性中性粒细胞减少症的合并发生率升高相关(分别为0.64,[95%置信区间(CI):0.50-0.78],对比0.39 [95% CI:0.25-0.53]),但与更高的客观缓解率无显著相关(比值比:1.05,95%CI:0.60-1.82,p = 0.86)。发现安全性数据报告存在重大不足;无法确定LD方案对许多安全性结局的影响。
BACKGROUND: T cell receptor-engineered T cell (TCR-T) therapy has shown promising efficacy in advanced solid tumours. Lymphodepleting (LD) chemotherapy improves TCR-T cell therapy efficacy but is associated with significant toxicities. Evidence is sparse regarding the optimum LD regimen for TCR-T cell therapy in solid tumours. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted of interventional, prospective clinical trials describing LD practices prior to TCR-T cell therapy in patients with advanced solid tumours. The objective was to define LD regimens administered prior to TCR-T cell therapy and their effects on specific safety and efficacy outcomes in this patient population. RESULTS: Searches returned 484 studies, 19 (231 patients) met the eligibility criteria. Cyclophosphamide (cyclo) 60 mg/kg daily (2 days), plus fludarabine (fludara) 25 mg/m 2 daily (5 days) was the most common LD regimen (38% of studies). Higher dose LD regimens were associated with increased pooled incidence rates of febrile neutropaenia compared to low dose (0.64, [95% Confidence interval (CI): 0.50-0.78], vs. 0.39 [95% CI: 0.25-0.53], respectively) but were not significantly associated with higher objective responses (odds ratio: 1.05, 95%CI: 0.60-1.82, p = 0.86). A major shortfall in safety data reporting was identified; determination of LD regimen effects on many safety outcomes was not possible. CONCLUSION: Standard consensus guidelines for the design and reporting of adoptive cell therapy (ACT) studies would facilitate accurate risk-benefit analysis for optimising LD regimens in patients with advanced solid tumours.
MEMBER ACCOUNT
登录成功会直接打开下一页。