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:Autologous Transplant or CAR-T as Consolidation Options in MYC Rearranged Large B-Cell Lymphoma Patients in Remission After Salvage Treatments.
Autologous Transplant or CAR-T as Consolidation Options in MYC Rearranged Large B-Cell Lymphoma Patients in Remission After Salvage Treatments.
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。
近期研究显示,CAR-T 细胞治疗伴MYC重排(R-MYC)的复发大B细胞淋巴瘤(LBCL)有效;然而,对于挽救治疗后达到完全或部分缓解(CR/PR)的患者,CAR-T 与自体造血细胞移植(auto-HCT)的比较数据有限。研究者利用国际血液与骨髓移植研究中心登记数据,比较挽救治疗后达到CR/PR并接受CAR-T 或auto-HCT的R-MYC LBCL(包括双重及三重打击淋巴瘤)患者临床结局。252例患者中,98例接受auto-HCT、154例接受CAR-T。多变量分析显示,与auto-HCT相比,CAR-T 与总生存期(OS)显著较差相关(风险比[HR] 2.09,95% CI 1.38–3.15,P<.001)。
两组无进展生存期(PFS)(HR 1.21,95% CI .81–1.8,P=.36)、复发风险(HR 1.1,95% CI .71–1.69,P=.68)和非复发死亡率(NRM;HR 1.74,95% CI .64–4.7,P=.28)无差异;复发后生存则auto-HCT优于CAR-T(HR 1.93,95% CI 1.21–3.06,P=.01)。在倾向评分匹配分析中,校正两队列特征差异后,OS(HR 1.72,95% CI .92–3.21,P=.09)、PFS(HR 1.04,95% CI .64–1.68,P=.88)、NRM(HR 1.22,95% CI .35–4.2,P=.76)、复发(HR .93,95% CI .54–1.6,P=.8)及复发后生存(HR 2.25,95% CI .98–5.17,P=.06)均无显著差异。尽管本研究为回顾性数据,但结果支持考虑对挽救治疗后达到CR/PR的R-MYC LBCL患者采用auto-HCT,尤其是在CAR-T 可及性受限或缺乏的地区。
Although recent studies have demonstrated the efficacy of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy in relapsed large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) with MYC rearrangement (R-MYC), the data comparing CAR-T to autologous hematopoietic cell transplant (auto-HCT) in such patients who achieve a complete or partial response (CR/PR) after salvage therapies are limited.
We compared the clinical outcomes of patients with R-MYC LBCL (including double and triple hit lymphomas) who underwent CAR-T or auto-HCT after achieving a CR/PR with salvage therapies using the Center for International Blood & Marrow Transplant Research registry. Among the 252 patients (auto-HCT = 98, CAR-T = 154), relative to auto-HCT, CAR-T was associated with significantly lower overall survival (OS) (Hazard Ratio [HR] 2. 09, 95% CI 1. 38-3. 15, p < 0. 001) on multivariate analysis. There were no differences in progression-free survival (PFS) (HR 1. 21, 95% CI 0. 81-1. 8 p = 0. 36), risk of relapse (HR 1. 1, 95% CI 0. 71-1. 69 p = 0. 68), nonrelapse mortality (NRM) (HR 1. 74, 95% CI 0. 64-4. 7 p = 0.
28) while the post-relapse survival was longer in auto-HCT relative to CAR-T (HR 1. 93, 95% CI 1. 21-3. 06 p = 0. 01). On propensity score matched analysis accounting for differences in characteristics across the two cohorts, we detected no significant differences in OS (HR 1. 72, 95% CI 0. 92-3. 21 p = 0. 09), PFS (HR 1. 04, 95% CI 0. 64-1. 68 p = 0. 88), NRM (HR 1.
22, 95% CI 0. 35-4. 2 p = 0. 76), relapse (HR = 0. 93, 95% CI 0. 54-1. 6 p = 0. 8) and post-relapse survival (HR 2. 25, 95% CI 0. 98-5. 17, p = 0. 06). These data, although retrospective, support consideration for auto-HCT in patients with R-MYC LBCL who achieve a CR/PR after salvage therapies, particularly in regions with no or limited access to CAR-T.
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。