ArticleCancer research and treatment2026
Comparative Effectiveness of Anbalcabtagene Autoleucel versus Tisagenlecleucel in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma.
Article in Cancer research and treatment, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAnbalcabtagene autoleucel (anbal-cel) is a second-generation CD19-targeted chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy reducing T-cell exhaustion through programmed death-1 and T cell immunoreceptor with Ig and ITIM domains downregulation. We compared efficacy of anbal-cel with tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma using external control arm study design. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe performed a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) using individual patient data from CRC01-01 (NCT#04836507) and aggregate data from JULIET trial (NCT#02445248). Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), with corresponding hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) assessed using weighted Cox proportional hazard model. Secondary outcomes were objective response rate (ORR) and complete response rate (CRR), with corresponding odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI assessed using weighted logistic regression model.
resultsWe included 79 patients in CRC01-01 and 115 in JULIET trial. In naïve comparison, median OS was not reached (95% CI, 13.1 to not estimable) for anbal-cel versus 11.1 months (95% CI, 6.6 to 23.9) for tisa-cel, corresponding to HR of 0.54 (95% CI, 0.34 to 0.87). Median PFS was 5.5 months (95% CI, 4.2 to 16.2) versus 2.9 months (95% CI, 2.3 to 5.2) with HR of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.50 to 1.08). ORR was 73.4% versus 53.0% with OR of 2.45 (95% CI, 1.32 to 4.54), and CRR was 64.6% versus 39.1% with OR of 2.83 (95% CI, 1.56 to 5.13). After applying MAIC to balance prognostic factors between the groups, adjusted HRs or ORs were 0.47 (95% CI, 0.23 to 0.95) for OS, 0.59 (95% CI, 0.36 to 0.96) for PFS, 2.60 (95% CI, 1.04 to 6.52) for ORR, and 3.00 (95% CI, 1.30 to 6.92) for CRR.
conclusionAnbal-cel showed superior effectiveness over tisa-cel, with higher response rates and improved survival outcomes, even after accounting for imbalances in prognostic factors at trial enrollment.
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.