ReviewTargeted oncology2026
Clinical Pharmacology of Lisocabtagene Maraleucel in B-cell Malignancies.
Review in Targeted oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies represent a distinct therapeutic modality whose clinical activity is governed by in vivo cellular kinetics. Lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel) is an autologous CD19-directed, 4-1BB CAR T-cell product in which in vivo expansion plays an important role in clinical pharmacology assessments. Across B-cell malignancies, characterization of liso-cel cellular kinetics demonstrates substantial interindividual variability in expansion, with no single evaluated clinical covariate exerting a clinically meaningful effect. Higher in vivo expansion has been associated with both efficacy and safety outcomes; however, interpretation of these relationships requires careful consideration of end point selection, baseline confounding, and outcome-specific biological context. Particularly, expansion-efficacy relationships are associative rather than causal and are influenced by baseline clinical characteristics and how efficacy end points are defined and assessed. Expansion-safety relationships are end point-dependent, reflecting dynamic immune interactions in the setting of cytokine release syndrome and predominantly downstream toxicity for neurological events. Other clinical pharmacology considerations, including retreatment, persistence, B-cell aplasia, and immunogenicity, further inform the interpretation of liso‑cel expansion within a broader clinical and biological framework. Collectively, these findings indicate that assessing in vivo liso-cel expansion provides important contextual clinical pharmacology information but does not establish it as an independent or deterministic driver of clinical outcomes.
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.