Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33939108›Full record

ReviewCurrent hematologic malignancy reports2021

Chimeric Antigen Receptor-Modified T Cells and T Cell-Engaging Bispecific Antibodies: Different Tools for the Same Job.

Melanie Schwerdtfeger, Mohamed-Reda Benmebarek, Stefan Endres, Marion Subklewe, Vincenzo Desiderio, Sebastian Kobold

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Melanie SchwerdtfegerCenter of Integrated Protein Science Munich (CIPS-M) and Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Medicine IV, Klinikum der Universität München, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Mohamed-Reda BenmebarekCenter of Integrated Protein Science Munich (CIPS-M) and Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Medicine IV, Klinikum der Universität München, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Stefan EndresCenter of Integrated Protein Science Munich (CIPS-M) and Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Medicine IV, Klinikum der Universität München, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Marion SubkleweDepartment of Medicine III, Klinikum der Universität München, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Vincenzo DesiderioDepartment of Experimental Medicine, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
Sebastian KoboldCenter of Integrated Protein Science Munich (CIPS-M) and Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Medicine IV, Klinikum der Universität München, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany. sebastian.kobold@med.uni-muenchen.de.ORCID 0000-0002-5612-4673

Funding

European Research Council 756017
6 · The paper itself

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

AnimalsAntibodies, BispecificAntigens, NeoplasmGenetic EngineeringHumansImmunotherapy, AdoptiveLymphocyte ActivationLymphocytes, Tumor-InfiltratingNeoplasmsReceptors, Antigen, T-CellReceptors, Chimeric AntigenSignal TransductionT-LymphocytesT-Lymphocyte SubsetsTumor MicroenvironmentAntibodies, BispecificAntigens, NeoplasmReceptors, Antigen, T-CellReceptors, Chimeric AntigenAdoptive T cell therapyBispecific antibodyCancerChimeric antigen receptorImmunotherapyT cell redirection

Identifiers

PMID33939108
PMCPMC8154758

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.