← 返回

免疫治疗的神经毒性:免疫检查点抑制剂相关脑炎 vs. 免疫效应细胞相关神经毒性综合征

英文原题:Neurotoxicity of Immunotherapy: Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Related Encephalitis vs. Immune Effector Cell-Associated Neurotoxicity Syndrome.

查看英文原题

Neurotoxicity of Immunotherapy: Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Related Encephalitis vs. Immune Effector Cell-Associated Neurotoxicity Syndrome.

PubMed 2025/12/17(内容时间) World J Oncol Q3 · IF 2.3(JCR 2025)

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。

中文摘要

免疫检查点抑制剂以及CAR-T 细胞和双特异性T细胞衔接器(BiTE)等工程化T细胞疗法已革新肿瘤治疗,同时也带来两种在临床表现上极为相似的神经综合征,均可出现意识混乱、癫痫发作和脑病:免疫检查点抑制剂相关脑炎(irEncephalitis)和免疫效应细胞相关神经毒性综合征(ICANS)。若干鉴别要点促成本综述:1)免疫耐受丧失可能驱动irEncephalitis,而ICANS主要由细胞因子—内皮—小胶质细胞级联反应主导。两者生物学机制均未完全明确,在真实患者中也可能交叠;2)irEncephalitis在免疫检查点抑制剂患者中少见(约0.1%–1%),ICANS则在CAR-T 后较常见(约40%,多数T细胞衔接器治疗后的发生率通常较低);3)缺乏诊断和分级系统,尤其没有专门的irEncephalitis分级标准,是实现结局一致和临床试验间有效比较的主要障碍;4)两者管理理念不同:irEncephalitis通过选择性免疫调节恢复免疫耐受,ICANS则使用糖皮质激素及抗细胞因子药物迅速抑制细胞因子介导的神经炎症。

本文回顾两种疾病的病理生理学、现有诊断和管理方式及临床试验,以形成更有条理的理解。综述认为:1)尽管两种综合征临床特征相似,其发病机制提示应基于起病时间和应答特征采用不同管理流程;依据机制进行干预是改善结局的关键;2)早期T细胞衔接器试验提示ICANS风险和应答可能因分子而异,亟需标准化报告并积累平台特异性数据;3)反映小胶质细胞信号和血脑屏障完整性的生物标志物及靶点不断出现,有望随领域成熟实现更精准有效的管理。本综述采用机制优先、并列比较的方式,将诊断、管理和疾病演变与临床决策联系起来,帮助肿瘤科医生、神经科医生及临床试验研究者在快速发展的T细胞免疫治疗时代实现精准诊断和治疗。

展开英文摘要原文

Immune checkpoint inhibitors and engineered T-cell therapies such as chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) cells and bispecific T-cell engagers (BiTEs) have revolutionized oncology care, and with them came two neurologic syndromes that look deceptively alike at the bedside with confusion, seizures, and encephalopathy: immune checkpoint inhibitor-related encephalitis (irEncephalitis) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS). Several differential observations between the two syndromes motivated this review: 1) although loss of immune tolerance likely drives irEncephalitis, ICANS on the other hand is dominated by cytokine-endothelial-microglial cascades.

The biology of both entities remains incompletely resolved and these lines blur in real patients, 2) irEncephalitis is uncommon in ICI recipients ( 0.

1-1%), whereas ICANS is common after CAR-T ( 40% and generally lower with most T-cell engagers), 3) lack of diagnostic and grading systems, especially the absence of a dedicated irEncephalitis grading system, remains the key barrier to consistent outcomes and meaningful comparison across clinical trials, and 4) management philosophies are asymmetric (restoring immune tolerance with selective immunomodulation in irEncephalitis vs. rapidly suppressing cytokine-mediated neuroinflammation with corticosteroids as well as anti-cytokine agents in ICANS).

Here we review the existing literature on pathophysiology and current landscape of the diagnostics, management, and clinical trials to gain further structured understanding of these intriguing disorders. In doing so, we conclude that: 1) although the syndromes share similar clinical features, their pathogenesis points to distinct management algorithms based on timing of onset and response profiles, making mechanism-informed intervention central to improving outcomes; 2) early T-cell engager trials hint at molecule-dependent ICANS risk and responsiveness, warranting standardized reporting and accumulation of platform-specific data; and 3) emerging biomarkers and targets that index microglial signaling and blood-brain barrier integrity promise more precise, effective management as the field matures.

In this review, we adopt a mechanism-first, side-by-side comparison that links diagnosis, management, and evolution to bedside decisions, with the aim of enabling precise diagnosis and management for oncologists, neurologists, and trialists operating in the rapidly expanding era of T-cell-based immunotherapy.

论文信息

作者
Sato T、Chida K、Gandhi S、Takabe K
单位
Breast Surgery, Department of Surgical Oncology, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, NY 14263, USA.United States
文献类型
综述
期刊
World journal of oncology2026 Feb
原文标识
PubMed 41488284 · DOI 10.14740/wjon2660