ReviewCurrent hematologic malignancy reports2021
Chimeric Antigen Receptor-Modified T Cells and T Cell-Engaging Bispecific Antibodies: Different Tools for the Same Job.
Review in Current hematologic malignancy reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cardiac Risk Without a Roadmap: Lack of Evidence-Based Guidance for Cardiovascular Toxicity of T-Cell Redirecting Therapies.Current oncology reports · 2026Review
- Foundational Principles for the Quantitative Translation of T-Cell Therapeutics for Hematologic Malignancies and Immunology.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Review
- CAR-engineered NK cells versus CAR T cells in treatment of glioblastoma; strength and flaws.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2025Review
- Rigid crosslinking of the CD3 complex leads to superior T cell stimulation.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Article
- Use of blinatumomab and CAR T-cell therapy in children with relapsed/refractory leukemia: A case series study.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Article
- A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Treatment Pathways in the United States.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewBoth chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells and T cell-engaging antibodies (BiAb) have been approved for the treatment of hematological malignancies. However, despite targeting the same antigen, they represent very different classes of therapeutics, each with its distinct advantages and drawbacks. In this review, we compare BiAb and CAR T cells with regard to their mechanism of action, manufacturing, and clinical application. In addition, we present novel strategies to overcome limitations of either approach and to combine the best of both worlds. RECENT
findingsBy now there are multiple approaches combining the advantages of BiAb and CAR T cells. A major area of research is the application of both formats for solid tumor entities. This includes improving the infiltration of T cells into the tumor, counteracting immunosuppression in the tumor microenvironment, targeting antigen heterogeneity, and limiting off-tumor on-target effects. BiAb come with the major advantage of being an off-the-shelf product and are more controllable because of their half-life. They have also been reported to induce less frequent and less severe adverse events. CAR T cells in turn demonstrate superior response rates, have the potential for long-term persistence, and can be additionally genetically modified to overcome some of their limitations, e.g., to make them more controllable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.