ReviewHematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program2024
Patient-reported outcomes after CAR T-cell therapy in patients with hematological malignancies.
Review in Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quality of Life in CAR-T Cell Therapy.Hematology reports · 2026Review
- Assessing Quality of Life and Symptoms in Transplantation and CAR-T Recipients: Expert Panel Recommendations from the Survivorship Special Interest Group of ASTCT.Transplantation and cellular therapy · 2025Review
- Rooting patient-reported outcomes in clinical care: a scoping review on benefits, challenges, and opportunities for patients and clinicians.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The remarkable improvement in survival among individuals with hematological malignancies receiving chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has highlighted the growing unmet need to incorporate patient-centered assessments in management guidelines for these patients. That CAR T-cell therapy is associated with unique toxicities and relatively high symptom burden in the first few weeks after cell infusion is well known. Magnifying the patient's voice by using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) might support personalized intervention in the acute-care setting, optimize the use of medical resources, improve satisfaction with therapy, and enhance survival benefit. However, various factors impede PRO use in routine patient care: (1) the feasibility of PRO assessment during the acute phase of treatment, especially in patients experiencing neurological toxicities, is not well established; (2) although PROs are widely used in drug- development trials, the assessment tools used in clinical trials primarily inform quality-of-life or safety comparisons among study arms and are rarely the proper tools for assessing and capturing clinically meaningful adverse events that should be monitored in routine patient care; (3) PRO data that could guide how best to monitor and capture the delayed effects of CAR T-cell therapy in long-term survivors are limited. There is a pressing need to overcome these barriers to integrating evidence-based PROs into standard-of-care guidelines for patients receiving CAR T-cell therapy. In this review, we present the current state of PRO utilization in CAR T-cell therapy. We also discuss practical approaches and future directions for successful implementation of PROs in the care of patients receiving CAR T-cell therapy.
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.