Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39603418›Full record

ReviewTransplantation and cellular therapy2025

Inconsistent Reporting and Definitions of Time-to-Event Endpoints in CAR T Clinical Trials: A Review.

Connor B Grady, Yimei Li, Shannon L Maude, Elizabeth O Hexner, Noelle V Frey, David L Porter, Wei-Ting Hwang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Transplantation and cellular therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. 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

7 authors.

Connor B GradyDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts; Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Yimei LiDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Division of Oncology, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Department of Pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Shannon L MaudeAbramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Division of Oncology, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Department of Pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Elizabeth O HexnerAbramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine and the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Noelle V FreyAbramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine and the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
David L PorterAbramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine and the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Wei-Ting HwangDepartment of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Abramson Cancer Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: whwang@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.

Funding

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA CAN CTR SUPPORT GRANTP30CA016520 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Robert H. Vonderheide · 1985 to 2026
$222.3M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016520
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical trials evaluating chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR T) commonly report time-to-event (TTE) endpoints. However, definitions are not necessarily comparable across studies and variability can lead to misinterpretation of results or inappropriate comparisons across products and studies. Amid the rapidly increasing number of published CAR T trials-many of which were used for regulatory approval-this study aims to summarize the variation in the use and reporting of TTE endpoints in CAR T trials. We include CAR T trials published January 2008 to January 2023 on PubMed that reported at least one of these TTE endpoints: overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response/remission (DOR), disease-free survival, event-free survival (EFS), relapse-free survival (RFS), time to relapse, time to progression, or time to treatment failure. We abstracted and summarized endpoint definitions, including the time origin, events, competing events, and censoring. We assessed the completeness of endpoint reporting, overall and by subgroups such as study phase, publication year, and the journal's impact factor. We included 116 publications in the analysis. The most frequently reported TTEs were OS (83%,), PFS (56%), DOR (55%), and EFS (23%). Complete reporting of endpoints was poor overall: 32%, 24%, 25%, and 56% for OS, PFS, DOR, and EFS respectively. Complete reporting was lower in articles published before 2018, in lower impact factor journals, and in phase I trials. There was also a large variability in TTE definitions among those reported. For example, among 64 studies reporting DOR, 48% used the date of response as the time origin while 20% used the date of infusion, and 31% did not report a time origin. There is substantial heterogeneity and incompleteness of TTE endpoint definitions in CAR T trials that could impact the interpretation of the study results. Improving TTE reporting, by stating the time origin, event(s) of interest, competing event(s) if any, and censoring, is required to ensure valid assessment of clinical benefit and cross-trial comparison.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicEndpoint DeterminationImmunotherapy, AdoptiveReceptors, Chimeric AntigenHumansTime FactorsReceptors, Chimeric AntigenCAR T-cell therapyClinical trialEndpoint definitionSurvival analysisTime-to-event outcome

Identifiers

PMID39603418
PMCPMC11957941

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.