ArticlePharmacoEconomics - open2023
Retrospective Comparison of Survival Projections for CAR T-Cell Therapies in Large B-Cell Lymphoma.
Article in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the Role and Policy Implications of Using External Evidence in Survival Extrapolations: A Case Study of Axicabtagene Ciloleucel Therapy for Second-Line DLBCL.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Article
- Mixture and Non-mixture Cure Models for Health Technology Assessment: What You Need to Know.PharmacoEconomics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDurable remission has been observed in patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) treated with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. Consequently, hazard functions for overall survival (OS) are often complex, requiring the use of flexible methods for extrapolations.
objectivesWe aimed to retrospectively compare the predictive accuracy of different survival extrapolation methods and evaluate the validity of goodness-of-fit (GOF) criteria-based model selection for CAR T-cell therapies in R/R LBCL.
methodsOS data were sourced from JULIET, ZUMA-1, and TRANSCEND NHL 001. Standard parametric, mixture cure, cubic spline, and mixture models were fit to multiple database locks (DBLs), with varying follow-up durations. GOF was assessed using the Akaike information criterion and Bayesian information criterion. Predictive accuracy was calculated as the mean absolute error (MAE) relative to OS observed in the most mature DBL.
resultsFor all studies, mixture cure and cubic spline models provided the best predictive accuracy for the least mature DBL (MAE 0.013‒0.085 and 0.014‒0.128, respectively). The predictive accuracy of the standard parametric and mixture models showed larger variation (MAE 0.024‒0.162 and 0.013‒0.176, respectively). With increasing data maturity, the predictive accuracy of standard parametric models remained poor. Correlation between GOF criteria and predictive accuracy was low, particularly for the least mature DBL.
conclusionsOur analyses demonstrated that mixture cure and cubic spline models provide the most accurate survival extrapolations of CAR T-cell therapies in LBCL. Furthermore, GOF should not be the only criteria used when selecting the optimal survival model.
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.