ArticleFrontiers in immunology2026
Clinical evidence on non-viral CAR-T cell therapies for solid tumors: a scoping review.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in solid tumors is hindered by the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment and by toxicities associated with viral-vector manufacturing. Non-viral gene delivery platforms have emerged as a potential alternative, though clinical evidence remains fragmented. Methods: Following an Results: Four early-phase studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing 28 heavily pretreated patients with metastatic solid tumors. Two non-viral platforms were identified: mRNA electroporation (n=19; intravenous in 13, intratumoral in 6) and the piggyBac transposon system (n=9). Across both mRNA routes, transient CAR-T persistence (<7 days) was observed, with no objective responses (ORR 0%), though disease stabilization yielded a disease control rate (DCR) of 53%; cross-route comparison is limited by differing distribution profiles. The piggyBac system showed longer persistence (~28 days) and a DCR of 78%, including the only documented objective response (ORR 11%). No Grade ≥3 cytokine release syndrome or neurotoxicity was reported in any of the 28 patients, and no tocilizumab or systemic corticosteroids were required. Conclusions: Within this limited early-phase evidence base, no severe toxicities attributable to non-viral platforms were reported, and the evidence identifies knowledge gaps warranting prospective investigation. mRNA platforms showed transient persistence and disease stabilization in 53% of patients. One partial response was documented with the piggyBac platform in a single patient; however, this outcome cannot be attributed to the delivery platform given simultaneous differences in target antigen, tumor histology, route of administration, and geographic setting. No firm conclusions regarding comparative platform performance can be drawn from this evidence base. Systematic review registration: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2TPQS, identifier OSF.IO/2TPQS.
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.