Search

Promising efficacy results of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy have been tempered by safety considerations. Our objective was to comprehensively summarize the efficacy and safety of CAR-T cell therapy in patients with relapsed or refractory hematologic or solid malignancies. MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (inception - November 21, 2017). Interventional studies investigating CAR-T cell therapy in patients with malignancies were included. Our primary outcome of interest was complete response (defined as the absence of detectable cancer). Two independent reviewers extracted relevant data, assessed risk of bias, and graded the quality of evidence using established methods. A total of 42 hematological malignancy studies and 18 solid tumor studies met were included (913 participants). Of 486 evaluable hematologic patients, 54.4% [95% CI, 42.5%-65.9%] experienced complete response in 27 CD19 CAR-T cell therapy studies. Of 65 evaluable hematologic patients, 24.4% [95% CI, 9.4%-50.3%] experienced complete response in seven non-CD19 CAR-T cell therapy studies. Cytokine release syndrome was experienced by 55.3% [95% CI, 40.3%-69.4%] of patients and neurotoxicity 37.2% [95% CI, 28.6%-46.8%] of patients with hematologic malignancies. Of 86 evaluable solid tumor patients, 4.1% [95% CI, 1.6%-10.6%] experienced complete response in eight CAR-T cell therapy studies. Limitations include heterogeneity of study populations, as well as high risk of bias of included studies. There was a strong signal for efficacy of CAR-T cell therapy in patients with CD19+ hematologic malignancies and no overall signal in solid tumor trials published to date. These results will help inform patients, physicians, and other stakeholders of the benefits and risks associated with CAR-T cell therapy.

Background ‘Patient engagement’ involves meaningful collaboration between researchers and ‘patient partners’ to co-create research. It helps ensure that research being conducted is relevant to its ultimate end-users. Although patient engagement within clinical research has been well documented, the prevalence and effects of patient engagement in translational preclinical laboratory research remain unclear. The aim of this scoping review is to present current patient engagement activities reported in preclinical laboratory research. Methods MEDLINE, Embase, and grey literature were systematically searched from inception to April 2021. Studies that described or investigated patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research were included. Patient engagement activities where patients (i.e. patients, family members, caregivers or community members) provided input, or consultation on at least one element of the research process were eligible for inclusion. Study characteristics and outcomes were extracted and organized thematically. Findings 32 reports were included (30 primary studies, 1 narrative review, and 1 researcher guide). Most studies engaged patients at the education or priority setting stages (n=26). The most frequently reported benefit of patient engagement was ‘providing a mutual learning opportunity’. Reported barriers to patient engagement reflected concerns around ‘differences in knowledge and research experience’ and how this may challenge communication and limit meaningful collaboration. Interpretation Patient engagement is feasible and beneficial for preclinical laboratory research. Future work should focus on assessing the impacts of patient engagement in this area of research. Funding None.