| Literature DB >> 31190844 |
Emmanuel Kwateng Drokow1, Hafiz Abdul Waqas Ahmed1, Cecilia Amponsem-Boateng2, Gloria Selorm Akpabla3, Juanjuan Song1, Mingyue Shi1, Kai Sun1.
Abstract
Purpose: Chimeric Antigen Receptor T(CAR-T) cell therapy is an immunotherapy approach used in treating cancer which has seen rapid development over the decades. It becomes the preferred treatment choice after patients have failed conventional chemotherapy.Entities:
Keywords: CAR-T; CD19; autologous; hematological malignancies; response rate
Year: 2019 PMID: 31190844 PMCID: PMC6511615 DOI: 10.2147/TCRM.S203822
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ther Clin Risk Manag ISSN: 1176-6336 Impact factor: 2.423
Figure 1Flow diagram of the selection process.
Patients Characteristics
| Name of author | No. of patients | Category of patients | Type of disease | Method of gene transfer | Ag recognition moieties | Costimulatory domains | Origin of T cells |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Turtle 2015 | 34 | Adult | B NHL=28 | Lentivirus | CD19 | 4-1BB | Autologous |
| CLL=6 | |||||||
| Porter 2015 | 14 | Adult | CLL | Lentivirus | CD19 | 4-1BB | Autologous |
| Porter 2014 | 26 | Adult | CLL | Lentivirus | CD19 | 4-1BB | Autologous |
| Schuster 2015 | 24 | Adult | B-NHL | Lentivirus | CD19 | 4-1BB | Autologous |
| Porter 2014 | 12 | Adult | ALL | Lentivirus | CD19 | 4-1BB | Autologous |
| Grupp 2015 | 53 | Pediatric | ALL | Lentivirus | CD19 | 4-1BB | Autologous |
| Lee 2015 | 20 | Pediatric | ALL | Retrovirus | CD19 | CD28 | Autologous |
| Kochendefer 2012 | 8 | Adult | B NHL | Retrovirus | CD19 | CD28 | Autologous |
| CLL | |||||||
| Kochenderfer 2015 | 15 | Adult | B-NHL | Retrovirus | CD19 | CD28 | Autologous |
| Brentjens 2013 | 46 | Adult | ALL | Retrovirus | CD19 | CD28 | Autologous |
| Turtle 2015 | 29 | Adult | ALL | Lentivirus | CD19 | 4-1BB | Autologous |
| Savoldo 2011 | 6 | Adult | NHL | Retrovirus | CD19 | CD28 | Autologous |
| Maude 2014 | 30 | Pediatric | ALL | Retrovirus | CD19 | 4-1BB | Autologous |
| Kalos 2011 | 3 | Adult | ALL | Retrovirus | CD19 | CD28 | Autologous |
Response rate subgroup analyses
| Name of author | Lymphodepletion Chemotherapy | Culture time of T cells | Generation of CART | Number of infused T cells | Treatment Response |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Turtle 2015 | Cyclophosphamide 60 mg/kg ×1± etoposide OR Cyclophosphamide 60 mg/kg ×1± Fludarabine 25 mg/m2×3 days | 12 days | 2nd | 2×105, 2×106 and 2×107/kg | CR=13 |
| PR=7 | |||||
| Porter 2015 | NA | 10–12 days | 2nd | 0.14–11×108/kg | CR=4 |
| PR=4 | |||||
| Porter 2014 | NA | 10–12 days | 2nd | 5×107 vs 5×108 | CR=5 |
| PR=4 | |||||
| Schuster 2015 | NA | 10 days | 2nd | 3.08–8.87×10 | CR=15 |
| Porter 2014 | NA | 10 days | 2nd | 6.5–8.45×10 | CR=8 |
| Grupp 2015 | NA | 13 days | 2nd | 1.07–17.36×10 | CR=50 |
| Lee 2015 | Cyclophosphamide 900 mg/kg ×1+ Fludarabine 25 mg/m2×3 days | 11 days | 2nd | 1×106 vs 3×106/kg | CR=14 |
| Kochendefer 2012 | Cyclophosphamide 60 mg/kg ×2+ Fludarabine 25 mg/m2×5 days | 24 days | 2nd | 0.3–3.0×107/kg | CR=1 |
| PR=5 | |||||
| Kochenderfer 2015 | Cyclophosphamide 60 mg/kg ×1–2+ Fludarabine 25 mg/m2×5 days | 11 days | 2nd | 1–5×106/kg | CR=8 |
| Brentjens 2013 | Cyclophosphamide 60 mg/kg ×1+ Fludarabine 25 mg/m2×3 days | 8 days | 2nd | 1×106 vs 3×106/kg | CR=37 |
| Turtle 2015 | Cyclophosphamide 60 mg/kg ×1+ Fludarabine 25 mg/m2×3 days | 14 days | 2nd | 2×105, 2×106 and 2×107/kg | CR=24 |
| Savoldo 2011 | NA | 6–18 days | 2nd | 1–5×106/kg | PD=4 |
| SD=2 | |||||
| Maude 2014 | Cyclophosphamide 60 mg/kg ×1+ Fludarabine 25 mg/m2×3 days OR Cyclophosphamide 60 mg/kg ×1± etoposide | 12 days | 2nd | 0.3–9.58×108/kg | CR=27 |
| NR=3 | |||||
| Kalos 2011 | Cyclophosphamide, Pentostain, Bendamustine, Rituximab | 10 days | 3rd | 0.14–11×108/kg | CR=2 |
| PR=1 |
Figure 2Forest plot for response rate and 95% CI based on individual study and the entire study.
Response rate subgroup analyses
| Prognostic factor | No. of study | Response rate (95%CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lymphodepletion | |||
| T cell culture time | |||
| Total CAR-T cells infused | |||
| Category of patient |
Figure 3Forest plot for CRS toxicity and 95% CI based on individual study and the entire study.
Figure 4Progression-free survival (PFS) curve.
Figure 5Overall survival (OS) curve.
Figure 6Funnel plot of response rate for publication bias.