ArticleBlood advances2026
Improved survival and health care use with CAR-T vs historical care in relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma.
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 1 paper.
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.
- A Prospective Population-Based Study of Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy for Patients with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abstractAnti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) immunotherapies have been funded in Canada for relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (R/R-LBCL) after 2 lines of systemic therapy since late 2019. Real-world outcome data have been limited by lack of comparison to historical care. Using propensity-weighted analysis, we compared 3-year survival, health care resource use (HRU), and hospitalization events for patients with R/R-LBCL treated with CAR-T (n = 85) vs historical controls (HCs) treated before CAR-T approval who would have been eligible based on present criteria (n = 150). CAR-T 3-year overall survival (OS) was 59% (95% confidence interval [CI], 42-72; median, not reached) vs 10% (95% CI, 5-16; median, 4.4 months) in HCs. Three-year CAR-T progression-free survival (PFS) was 48% (95% CI, 32-63]; median, 14.4 months) vs 6% (95% CI, 3-11; median, 3.6 months) in HCs. The hazard ratio (HR) for OS was 0.21 (95% CI, 0.14-0.31), and for PFS was 0.28 (95% CI, 0.2-0.39), comparing CAR-T vs HCs. Per 1000 person-days at risk, patients receiving CAR-T had fewer hospital admissions than HCs (5.32 vs 9.1), emergency visits (2.33 vs 4.81), and intensive care admissions (0.53 vs 1.25), plus lower hospitalization rates for fever (0.93 vs 1.63), infection (1.48 vs 3.08), and neutropenia (0.66 vs 1.97; all P< .001). CAR-T produced a sustained survival benefit, and, despite well-described CAR-T toxicities, HCs experienced more hospitalization events, underscoring the lack of effective salvage treatments. As one of the largest real-world comparisons of patients with R/R-LBCL receiving CAR-T vs previous standard of care, this study demonstrated its improved effectiveness and reduced HRU.
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.