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:Efficacy and Safety of Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR)-T Cell Therapy in Patients with Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Efficacy and Safety of Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR)-T Cell Therapy in Patients with Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
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。
CAR-TCT 显著改善难治性 NHL 的 OS 和 PFS,但对 EFS 无明显影响。虽然其 ORR 与标准化疗相当,但 CAR-TCT 具有更好的安全性,使其成为一种有前景的治疗选择。
非霍奇金淋巴瘤(NHL)是一组异质性淋巴增殖性恶性肿瘤,通常比霍奇金淋巴瘤更难以预测,结外播散的可能性更高。NHL对标准化疗的耐药性不断增加,导致对CAR-T 细胞疗法(CAR-TCT)等个体化治疗的关注日益增长。
通过PubMed、ScienceDirect、Google Scholar和Cochrane Library对截至2024年7月发表的关于CAR-TCT治疗NHL的研究进行了文献检索。评估的结局包括总生存期(OS)、无事件生存期(EFS)、无进展生存期(PFS)、客观缓解率(ORR)和不良事件(AEs)。使用RevMan 5.41和Comprehensive Meta-analysis 3对数据进行合并。
在532篇文章中,有8篇符合纳入标准。与标准化疗相比,CAR-TCT显著改善了OS(HR:0.79;95% CI:0.63-1.00;P=0.05)和PFS(HR:0.46;95% CI:0.36-0.58;P<0.00001)。然而,EFS无显著差异(HR:0.54;95% CI:0.26-1.09;P=0.09)。约76.6%的NHL患者对CAR-TCT有应答,但CAR-TCT与标准治疗之间的ORR相似(MD:19.23%;95% CI:-11.34%至49.80%;P=0.22)。安全性分析发现,CAR-TCT与标准治疗的3级AEs发生率相当。然而,CAR-TCT与更高的中性粒细胞减少风险相关,但血小板减少、贫血和恶心风险更低。
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).
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.
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.
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.
MEMBER ACCOUNT
登录成功会直接打开下一页。