CAR-T(CAR-T)细胞疗法在非肿瘤性疾病中的应用
Chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cell therapy in non-oncological diseases.
CAR-T(CAR-T)细胞在血液系统恶性肿瘤中的应用推动了这种免疫治疗形式的显著进展。
CELL INTELLIGENCE · 肿瘤细胞治疗研究
肿瘤细胞治疗研究
英文原题:CAR T-cell detection scoping review: an essential biomarker in critical need of standardization.
CAR T-cell detection scoping review: an essential biomarker in critical need of standardization.
分数与星级只用于站内排序 —— 不代表疗效、安全性或个人适用性。
嵌合抗原受体(CAR)T细胞在患者体内的扩增和持续存在与疗效、毒性及长期有效性相关。因此,用于检测输注后CAR-T 细胞的工具对于优化这一治疗策略至关重要。
然而,尽管这一关键生物标志物具有重要价值,但CAR-T 细胞检测方法以及检测频率和间隔仍存在显著差异。此外,定量数据报告中的异质性进一步增加了复杂性,限制了试验间和构建体间的比较。
我们采用PRISMA-ScR清单开展范围综述,旨在评估CAR-T 细胞扩增和持续存在数据的异质性。研究聚焦于来自美国的21项临床试验,这些试验涉及美国食品药品监督管理局批准的CAR-T 细胞构建体或其前身之一;基于是否包含CAR-T 细胞扩增和持续存在数据,共筛选105篇手稿,并选择60篇进行分析。在各类CAR-T 细胞构建体中,流式细胞术和定量PCR被确定为检测CAR-T 细胞的两种主要技术。
然而,尽管检测技术在表面上具有一致性,具体使用方法却高度可变。检测时间点和评估时间点数量也差异显著,且定量数据往往未报告。为评估同一试验后续手稿是否解决了这些问题,我们分析了报告这21项临床试验的所有后续手稿,并记录所有扩增和持续存在数据。尽管后续出版物中报道了其他检测技术,包括微滴数字 PCR、NanoString 和单细胞 RNA 测序,但在检测时间点和频率方面仍存在不一致,大量定量数据仍不易获取。
我们的发现凸显了建立 CAR-T 细胞检测报告通用标准的迫切需求,尤其是在早期阶段研究中。当前报告不可相互转换的指标以及定量数据提供有限,使得跨试验和跨 CAR-T 细胞构建体比较极具挑战性。迫切需要建立标准化的数据收集和报告方法,这将显著提升改善接受 CAR-T 细胞治疗患者结局的能力。
The expansion and persistence of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cells in patients are associated with response, toxicity, and long-term efficacy. As such, the tools used to detect CAR T-cells following infusion are fundamental for optimizing this therapeutic approach. Nevertheless, despite the critical value of this essential biomarker, there is significant variability in CAR T-cell detection methods as well as the frequency and intervals of testing.
Furthermore, heterogeneity in the reporting of quantitative data adds layers of complexity that limit intertrial and interconstruct comparisons.
We sought to assess the heterogeneity of CAR T-cell expansion and persistence data in a scoping review using the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Focusing on 21 clinical trials from the USA, featuring a Food and Drug Administration-approved CAR T-cell construct or one of its predecessors, 105 manuscripts were screened and 60 were selected for analysis, based on the inclusion of CAR T-cell expansion and persistence data.
Across the array of CAR T-cell constructs, flow cytometry and quantitative PCR were identified as the two primary techniques for detecting CAR T-cells.
However, despite apparent uniformity in detection techniques, the specific methods used were highly variable. Detection time points and the number of evaluated time points also ranged markedly and quantitative data were often not reported. To evaluate whether subsequent manuscripts from a trial resolved these issues, we analyzed all subsequent manuscripts reporting on the 21 clinical trials, recording all expansion and persistence data.
While additional detection techniques-including droplet digital PCR, NanoString, and single-cell RNA sequencing-were reported in follow-up publications, inconsistencies with respect to detection time points and frequency remained, with a significant amount of quantitative data still not readily available.
Our findings highlight the critical need to establish universal standards for reporting on CAR T-cell detection, especially in early phase studies. The current reporting of non-interconvertible metrics and limited provision of quantitative data make cross-trial and cross-CAR T-cell construct comparisons extremely challenging. Establishing a standardized approach for collecting and reporting data is urgently needed and would represent a substantial advancement in the ability to improve outcomes for patients receiving CAR T-cell therapies.
在 PubMed 查看 → 出版商原文(DOI) 全文 PDF(PMC)· 可下载 治疗专题与资料阅读指南 资料来源与翻译说明 报告译文或资料问题 →
MEMBER ACCOUNT
登录成功会直接打开下一页。