Trial reportHaematologica2025
Comparative efficacy of lisocabtagene maraleucel in the PILOT study
Trial report in Haematologica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03483103 (A Phase 2 Study of Lisocabtagene Maraleucel), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
A Phase 2 Study of Lisocabtagene Maraleucel (JCAR017) as Second-Line Therapy in Adult Patients With Aggressive B-cell NHL (017006)
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Covariate selection and adjustment for efficacy and safety endpoints in indirect comparative effectiveness analyses of CAR-T-cell therapies for large B-cell lymphoma: a systematic review.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2026Pooled it
- Sequencing Anti-CD19 Therapies in Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: From Mechanistic Insights to Clinical Strategies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study assessed the comparative efficacy of lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) in the open-label, phase II PILOT study (clinicaltrials.gov NCT03483103) versus conventional second-line (2L) chemotherapy regimens in the real world administered to patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) who were not intended for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). The liso-cel-treated cohort (N=61) was based on patients who received liso-cel in the PILOT study. The conventional chemotherapy cohort included patients who met PILOT eligibility criteria and received conventional 2L chemotherapy in the real-world clinical setting (N=273). After using the trimmed stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting method to balance cohorts according to baseline characteristics, there were statistically significant differences in all tested measures of efficacy. Compared with real-world conventional chemotherapy regimens, liso-cel demonstrated higher overall response rates (79.6% with liso-cel vs. 50.5% with conventional chemotherapy; relative risk [RR]: 1.6; P<0.0001) and complete response rates (53.1% vs. 24.0%; RR: 2.2; P<0.0001), longer median duration of response (12.1 vs. 4.3 months; hazard ratio [HR: 0.40; P=0.0001), longer median event-free survival (7.0 vs. 2.8 months; HR: 0.43; P<0.0001), longer median progression-free survival (7.0 vs. 2.9 months; HR: 0.46; P<0.0001), and longer median overall survival (not reached vs. 12.6 months; HR: 0.58; P=0.0256). Results from analyses applying various additional statistical approaches consistently favored outcomes with liso-cel over real-world conventional chemotherapy regimens. These results reinforce the efficacy of liso-cel as 2L therapy for patients with R/R LBCL who are not intended for HSCT.
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.