↓ Skip to main content

Effect of transplant status in CD19-targeted CAR T-cell therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Oncology, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#46 of 1,305)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
Title
Effect of transplant status in CD19-targeted CAR T-cell therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Medical Oncology, September 2018
DOI 10.1007/s12032-018-1204-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathleen Nagle, Barbara Tafuto, Lisa Palladino Kim, J. Scott Parrott

Abstract

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has shown promise for relapsed/refractory malignancies. Many patients have undergone prior hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), yet effects of transplant status on CAR T-cell therapy efficacy and safety have not been reported. The purpose of the study is to systematically evaluate the likelihood of achieving optimum response, severe cytokine release syndrome (sCRS), and neurotoxicity in the context of CAR T-cell therapy for HSCT-naïve patients versus those with prior HSCT. Trials were identified in ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, and PubMed, and through reference pearl growing. Included studies used CD19-directed CAR T-cells for relapsed/refractory B-lineage Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia and B cell Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia, enrolled both HSCT-naïve and prior-HSCT patients, and denoted transplant status with outcomes. Six studies were included for optimum response, five for sCRS incidence, and four for neurotoxicity incidence. The pooled odds ratio for optimum response was 1.57 favoring HSCT-naïve patients (95% CI 0.54-4.61), whereas the pooled odds ratios for sCRS and neurotoxicity were 1.41 (95% CI 0.51-3.94) and 1.37 (95% CI 0.28-6.77), respectively, toward HSCT-naïve patients. Odds ratios were non-statistically significant. Overall risk of bias was moderate. While pooled estimates showed an advantage among HSCT-naïve patients for achieving optimum response and increased likelihood for sCRS and neurotoxicity, findings were not statistically significant. Any differences in efficacy and safety of CAR T-cell therapy cannot be verifiably attributed to transplant status, and additional controlled trials with increased sample sizes are needed to determine whether suggestive patterns favoring HSCT-naïve patients are validated.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 18%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Student > Master 6 11%
Other 5 9%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 10 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 14 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 September 2018.
All research outputs
#3,171,758
of 23,103,436 outputs
Outputs from Medical Oncology
#46
of 1,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,431
of 337,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Oncology
#1
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,436 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,305 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 337,559 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.