ArticleBlood advances2026
Outcomes for CART as 2L vs 3L vs 4L or beyond in aggressive B-cell lymphoma: real-world evidence from the ABC Consortium.
Article in Blood advances, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Drivers of temporal improvement in CAR T-cell therapy for large B-cell lymphoma: a Japanese nationwide registry analysis.Blood advances · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
30 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abstractChimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CART) therapy has transformed the management of relapsed and refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL), but real-world outcomes data is needed to confirm the benefits seen in clinical trial settings. We performed a multicenter retrospective analysis evaluating CART therapy outcomes according to line of therapy, specifically second line (2L) vs third line (3L) vs fourth line (4L) and beyond (4L+). We included patients who received CD19-directed CART therapy for de novo diffuse LBCL or transformed follicular lymphoma. Overall (N = 466), 21% (n = 98) of patients received CART as 2L, 41% (n = 192) as 3L, and 38% (n = 176) as 4L+. Median follow-up from CART infusion was 35 months. Overall response rate and complete response rate were similar for 2L vs 3L vs 4L+. From CART infusion, median progression-free survival (mPFS) and median overall survival (mOS) were similar for 2L vs 3L, but shorter in patients receiving CART as 4L+ (mPFS, 11.6 vs 12.7 vs 5.7 months, P< .001; mOS, not reached vs 69.4 vs 21.9 months, P< .001). In patients with double-hit or triple-hit lymphoma (DHL/THL), receiving CART in 2L vs 3L significantly improved 3-year OS (63% [2L] vs 32% [3L], P = .01). Patients with disease that required bridging therapy were also at increased risk of progression or death. Overall, our findings inform real-world practice wherein CART therapy as 2L vs 3L yields similar survival outcomes in unselected patients. However, patients specifically with DHL/THL should be considered for CART therapy in the 2L outside of the primary refractory disease (PRD) or early relapsed setting.
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.