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.
CELL INTELLIGENCE · 肿瘤细胞治疗研究
肿瘤细胞治疗研究
英文原题:Outcomes of patients with R/R B-cell NHL and limited (<5 sites) pre-CART disease bridged with or without radiotherapy.
Outcomes of patients with R/R B-cell NHL and limited (<5 sites) pre-CART disease bridged with or without radiotherapy.
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。
未接受放疗的复发/难治性(R/R)B细胞非霍奇金淋巴瘤(NHL)患者在接受抗CD19CAR-T 细胞治疗(CAR-T)后,复发模式以局部为主,这一特征在CAR-T 前病灶局限/局限性的个体中意义更为突出。
本研究报道了R/R NHL且病灶局限(<5个受累部位)患者在接受或不接受放疗桥接治疗后的结局。对150例在白细胞分离术前病灶部位<5个、接受CAR-T 的R/R NHL患者进行了多中心回顾性分析。桥接治疗(如有)在白细胞分离术与CAR-T 输注之间给予。研究终点包括无复发生存期(RFS)、无事件生存期(EFS)和总生存期。在CAR-T 输注前,48例患者(32%)接受了桥接放疗(BRT),102例(68%)未接受。中位随访时间为21个月。CAR-T 输注后,BRT患者的客观缓解率(92% vs 78%;P = .046)和持续完全缓解率(54% vs 33%;P = .015)更高。CAR-T 前存在的病灶部位局部复发在BRT组较低(21% vs 46%;P = .003)。与未接受BRT的患者相比,BRT患者的2年RFS(53% vs 44%;P = .023)和2年EFS(37% vs 34%;P = .039)改善。BRT的影响在CAR-T 前受累病灶部位≤2个的患者中最为显著,接受BRT的患者2年RFS为62%,而未接受BRT的患者为42%(P = .002)。对于病灶局限(<5个受累部位)的R/R NHL患者,CAR-T 前进行BRT可改善缓解率、局部控制、RFS和EFS,且不引起显著毒性。
Unirradiated patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) who undergo anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CART) have a predominant localized pattern of relapse, the significance of which is heightened in individuals with limited/localized disease before CART.
This study reports on the outcomes of patients with R/R NHL and limited (<5 involved sites) disease bridged with or without radiotherapy. A multicenter retrospective review of 150 patients with R/R NHL who received CART with <5 disease sites before leukapheresis was performed. Bridging treatment, if any, was administered between leukapheresis and CART infusion. Study end points included relapse-free survival (RFS), event-free survival (EFS), and overall survival. Before CART infusion, 48 patients (32%) received bridging radiotherapy (BRT), and 102 (68%) did not. The median follow-up was 21 months. After CART infusion, BRT patients had higher objective response (92% vs 78%; P = .
046) and sustained complete response rates (54% vs 33%; P = . 015). Local relapse in sites present before CART was lower in the BRT group (21% vs 46%; P = . 003). BRT patients had improved 2-year RFS (53% vs 44%; P = . 023) and 2-year EFS (37% vs 34%; P = . 039) compared with patients who did not receive BRT.
The impact of BRT was most prominent in patients who had ≤2 pre-CART involved disease sites, with 2-year RFS of 62% in patients who received BRT compared with 42% in those who did not (P = . 002). BRT before CART for patients with limited (<5 involved disease sites) R/R NHL improves response rate, local control, RFS, and EFS without causing significant toxicities.
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。