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:Multinational retrospective analysis of bridging therapy prior to chimeric antigen receptor t cells for relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children and young adults.
Multinational retrospective analysis of bridging therapy prior to chimeric antigen receptor t cells for relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children and young adults.
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。
抗CD19CAR-T 细胞(CAR)是患有复发/难治性B系急性淋巴细胞白血病的儿童和年轻成人一种成熟的治疗选择。桥接治疗用于在CAR输注前开始淋巴细胞清除前控制疾病,从而提高CAR治疗的疗效。
然而,不同桥接策略对结局、副作用及对CAR治疗反应的影响仍知之甚少。在这项回顾性、多国研究中,从德国、奥地利和瑞士的14个不同中心收集了88例接受93次第二代CAR治疗患者的真实世界数据。桥接治疗被分为以下几类:1)无全身治疗(15/93次治疗),2)低强度治疗(38/93次治疗),3)高强度治疗(39/93次治疗)。
我们分析了桥接方案对临床结局的影响。接受高强度桥接治疗的患者在符合条件时的肿瘤负荷显著高于接受低强度或无全身桥接治疗的患者。他们发生细菌性不良事件和黏膜炎显著更多。与接受低强度或高强度桥接方案的患者相比,未接受任何桥接治疗的患者总生存期显著更好。
总之,在这个回顾性队列中,与低强度治疗相比,高强度桥接治疗并未改善总生存期和无进展生存期方面的结局。然而,高强度桥接治疗与更多不良事件相关。
我们的研究表明,只要肿瘤负荷和疾病动力学允许这种治疗策略,可能更倾向于采用低强度桥接方案。
Anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T cells (CAR) are a well-established treatment option for children and young adults suffering from relapsed/refractory B-lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Bridging therapy is used to control disease prior to start of lymphodepletion before CAR infusion and thereby improve efficacy of CAR therapy.
However, the effect of different bridging strategies on outcome, side effects and response to CAR therapy is still poorly understood. In this retrospective, multinational study, real-world data were collected from 14 different sites in Germany, Austria and Switzerland on 88 patients receiving 93 2nd-generation CAR therapies. Bridging therapy was classified into the categories 1) no systemic therapy (15/93 treatments), 2) low-intensity therapy (38/93 treatments) and 3) high-intensity therapy (39/93 treatments).
We analyzed the impact of bridging regimens on clinical outcome. Patients receiving a high-intensity bridging therapy had a significantly higher tumor burden at time of eligibility compared to patients treated with a low-intensity or no systemic bridging therapy. They suffered significantly more from bacterial adverse events and mucositis.
Overall survival was significantly better for patients who did not receive any bridging therapy in comparison to patients who had been treated with a low- or high-intensity bridging regimen.
In conclusion, in this retrospective cohort, high-intensity bridging therapy has not improved the outcome in terms of overall and progression-free survival in comparison to a low-intensity therapy. Yet, high-intensity bridging therapy was associated with more adverse events.
Our study suggests that a low-intensity bridging regimen may be preferred whenever tumor burden and disease kinetics allow this treatment strategy.
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。