SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
CAR T-cell vs bispecific antibodies in relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is an aggressive B-cell lymphoma with limited treatment options for relapsed/refractory (R/R) cases. CAR T-cell therapy and CD20×CD3 bispecific antibodies are promising immunotherapies, but no study has systematically compared their efficacy and safety in R/R MCL. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024622564). A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (from inception to October 27, 2024) was performed to identify studies evaluating CAR T-cell therapy and bispecific antibodies in R/R MCL (third-line or later). Random-effects and fixed-effects models were used to calculate pooled complete response (CR) rates, overall response (OR) rates, and Grade ≥3 adverse events. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results. Results: Five studies (237 patients) were included. Pooled CR rates were 0.63(95% CI, 0.51-0.74)for bispecific antibodies and 0.70(95%CI, 0.63-0.77) for CAR T-cell therapy (P <0.05). OR rates were similar (0.75 vs. 0.88). Grade ≥3 cytokine release syndrome rates were comparable (0.06 vs. 0.06), but neurotoxicity cannot be compared. Conclusion: CAR T-cell therapy demonstrated higher CR rates versus bispecific antibodies, supporting their role as effective third-line treatments for R/R MCL. Randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42024622564.
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.