SynthesisBlood cancer journal2025
Systematic review and meta-analysis: CAR-T vs bispecific antibody as third or later-line therapy for follicular lymphoma.
Synthesis in Blood cancer journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impact of cryopreservation on PBMC-derived CAR-T cell manufacturing outcomes: a systematic review.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Pooled it
- Real-world outcomes of bispecific antibody therapy after chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy in follicular lymphoma.Blood cancer journal · 2026Article
- Targeting T-Cells for Cancer Treatment: Current Clinical Strategies and Challenges.Biomedicines · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is currently no clear consensus on the standard of care for relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma (FL) beyond third-line therapy, where both anti-CD19 CAR-T-cell therapy (CAR-T) and CD3×CD20 bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) have demonstrated efficacy. This study aimed to examine their efficacy and toxicity profiles. Relevant studies published between January 2010 and June 2025 were identified through major databases. Of 3960 records screened, 12 studies met the inclusion criteria-7 involving CAR-T and 5 involving BsAbs. The pooled overall response rate (ORR) and complete response rate (CRR) were 93% and 82% for CAR-T, compared with 82% and 67% for BsAbs (p = 0.0002 and p = 0.005, respectively). Among patients with POD24, the CRR was 75% for CAR-T and 69% for BsAbs (p = 0.56). This translated into improved progression-free survival (PFS) with CAR-T: 6-month, 1-year and 3-year PFS rates were 85%, 74% and 54%, respectively, compared with 74%, 62%, and 42% for BsAbs (p = 0.006, p = 0.002 and p = 0.009, respectively). A trend toward higher 3-year overall survival (OS) was observed with CAR-T (80%) versus BsAbs (73%) (p = 0.48). Grade ≥3 immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) occurred more frequently with CAR-T (8% vs. 0%, p = 0.04), whereas grade ≥3 infections were numerically higher with BsAbs (17% vs. 9%, p = 0.31). One-year non-relapse mortality (NRM) was similar between groups at 3%. Overall, CAR-T demonstrated potentially higher efficacy in this non-comparative meta-analysis, while the two therapies exhibited noticeable differences in toxicity profiles.
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.