ArticleBlood advances2025
Comparative real-world outcomes of CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapies in large B-cell lymphoma.
Article in Blood advances, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Cellular therapy in mantle cell lymphoma: recommendations from the EBMT practice harmonisation and guidelines committee.Bone marrow transplantation · 2026Guideline
- Pooled it
- Model-Based Analysis with Mechanistic Insights to CAR-T-Cell Therapy Kinetics: Case Study with Axicabtagene Ciloleucel and Brexucabtagene Autoleucel.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Englumafusp alfa plus glofitamab in B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a phase 1 trial.Nature medicine · 2026Article
- Beyond Survival: Measuring Treatment Tolerability with Patient-Reported Outcomes in the Lymphoma Immunotherapy Era.Current hematologic malignancy reports · 2026Review
- Cancer treatment-related cardiovascular toxicity according to the ESC definition in patients receiving CAR T-cell therapy.Cardio-oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
- Drivers of temporal improvement in CAR T-cell therapy for large B-cell lymphoma: a Japanese nationwide registry analysis.Blood advances · 2026Article
- Guided immunotherapy for residual solid tumor: integrating platelets and CAR T cells to reduce post-surgical recurrence.Biomarker research · 2026Review
- Decreased renal function predicts severe cytokine release syndrome after CAR-T-cell therapy for large B-cell lymphoma.British journal of haematology · 2026Article
- The impact of the large B-cell lymphoma tumor microenvironment on efficacy of CD19-directed CAR-T immunotherapy.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Improving CAR T cell therapy against malignancies through gene knock-down/out strategies: a systematic review.Cancer cell international · 2025Review
- Predictors of response to CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy in large B-cell lymphoma: a consolidated review.Current opinion in oncology · 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
25 authors.
Funding
Abstract
abstractAlthough 3 commercial CD19-targeted chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies are available for large B-cell lymphomas (LBCLs), no randomized clinical trials have compared their efficacy and safety. In this retrospective multicenter cohort study, we evaluated real-world clinical outcomes of patients with relapsed/refractory LBCL treated with axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel), tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel), or lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel). Between April 2016 and July 2024, 624 patients received CD19-targeted CAR T-cell therapies (344 axi-cel, 142 tisa-cel, and 138 liso-cel). At a median follow-up of 20.9 months, the respective estimated 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 46% and 63% for axi-cel, 30% and 45% for tisa-cel, and 45% and 58% for liso-cel. After adjusting for potential confounders in multivariate analyses, tisa-cel was associated with inferior PFS and OS compared to axi-cel. No significant survival differences were found between liso-cel and axi-cel. Propensity score and subanalyses of patients treated in the second-line vs third-line or later settings yielded similar outcomes. Compared to axi-cel, the objective response rate at 100 days was higher for liso-cel and lower for tisa-cel. Rates of cytokine release syndrome, immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, and immune effector cell-associated hematotoxicity, and febrile neutropenia were significantly higher with axi-cel. However, no significant differences in the cumulative incidence of infections or nonrelapse mortality were found. Axi-cel was associated with faster vein-to-vein time (axi-cel, 35 days; tisa-cel, 43 days; liso-cel, 41 days) and fewer out-of-specification products (axi-cel, 2%; tisa-cel, 4%; liso-cel, 11%). These results provide insights into potential differential outcomes depending on product selection.
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.