4.3 Article

Relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients. A multicenter retrospective analysis of eligibility criteria for car-T cell therapy

Journal

LEUKEMIA & LYMPHOMA
Volume 62, Issue 4, Pages 828-836

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/10428194.2020.1849676

Keywords

Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; CAR-T cells; relapse-refractory disease; CAR-T cell eligibility

Funding

  1. Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC) 5 x 1000, Special Program Metastases, Milan (Italy) [21198]
  2. BEAT Leukemia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study found that only 46.7% of DLBCL patients are eligible for CAR-T therapy, with eligible patients having longer overall survival. Advanced stage and poor ECOG score are significant prognostic factors for survival, and only 5.8% of DLBCL patients truly meet the eligibility criteria for CAR-T therapy.
Anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells represent the first approved third-line therapy associated with long-term remissions in patients with refractory/relapsed (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Eligibility criteria to identify patients who can successfully receive CAR-T are still debated. For this reason, the aim of this study was to identify factors influencing eligibility and define a realistic patient estimate. Of 1100 DLBCL patients, 137 were included. Based on the Juliet trial inclusion criteria, only 64 patients (46.7%) would be eligible. Median overall survival (OS) was 8.04 months in eligible vs 3.23 in non-eligible patients (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis identified stage III-IV (p = 0.017) and ECOG >= 2 (p < 0.001) as significant independent prognostic factors for OS. Moreover, only 64/1100 (5.8%) DLBCL patients would be truly eligible for CAR-T. Our real-life data confirm that with a longer waiting time patients with advanced stage and poor ECOG are less likely to be eligible for CAR-T cell infusion.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available