ArticleCancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII2025
Be cautious to adopt a second CAR T-cell infusion after failure of CD19/CD22 cocktail CAR T-cell therapy in relapsed/refractory B-NHL.
Article in Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII, 2025. 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.
- Immunogenicity of Gene and Cell Therapies.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2026Review
- Repeated Infusions of Brexucabtagene-autoleucel in Relapsed/Refractory Mantle Cell Lymphoma.HemaSphere · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell infusion (CTI) therapy has emerged as a breakthrough therapy in relapsed/refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (R/R B-NHL), but a substantial number of patients still suffer treatment failure. Data on disease history, subsequent salvage therapies, and outcomes of patients who face treatment failure after the first CTI (CTI1) have not been reported in detail or systematically studied. Here, a retrospective analysis was performed on a total of 61 R/R B-NHL patients in whom salvage therapies were adopted after CTI1 treatment failure, with their clinical characteristics, subsequent management and outcomes described in detail. The results suggested that second-time CTI (CTI2) used as salvage therapy after failure of CTI1 could achieve a better transient overall response rate (ORR) than other salvage treatments (non-CTI2) in only a minority of patients (8/27 vs. 2/34, P=0.014). Nevertheless, the non-CTI2 group showed better event-free survival (EFS) (P = 0.007) and overall survival (OS) (P = 0.048) than the CTI2 group, with a median follow-up of 6.7 months vs. 4.7 months. In addition, univariate and multivariate analyses showed that only the status of the tumor at disease onset was an independent risk factor for survival; salvage therapy after CTI1 treatment failure was not. The adverse effects of CTI2 treatment were generally similar to those of non-CTI2 treatment, but the infection-related mortality was considerably higher. In conclusion, the prognosis of patients who fail CTI1 therapy is very poor regardless of the subsequent salvage therapies, and clinicians should be cautious about adopting CTI2 treatment after failure of treatment with the CD19/22 cocktail CTI1 in R/R B-NHL. Large-scale prospective studies are warranted, and new strategies are urgently needed to prevent treatment failure and improve the survival of B-cell lymphoma patients in future.
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.