Evidence Hub

Patterns, risk factors and management of CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy failure in CNS lymphoma

Kaulen LD, Karschnia P, Doubrovinskaia S, Abramson JS, Soumerai JD, Martinez-Lage M, Haydu JE, Shankar GM et al.

Journal of hematology & oncology, 2026

36 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CD19-CAR) has yielded encouraging efficacy in CNS lymphomas (CNSL), but most patients ultimately experience progressive disease (PD). Risk factors, progression patterns as well as optimal salvage therapies remain unclear.

METHODS: Clinical and radiological characteristics of CD19-CAR failure were therefore retrospectively defined in CNSL treated at Massachusetts General Hospital from 2018 to 2024. PD patterns were defined as local or distant. CNS-progression-free survival from CD19-CAR infusion (CNS-PFS1) and first subsequent progression (CNS-PFS2) were analyzed.

RESULTS: CD19-CAR achieved a 60% overall response rate (45% complete (CR), 15% partial response) in 60 recurrent CNSL. Median CNS-PFS1 was 4 months with radiographic PD in 36 patients (local 23.3%; local and distant 16.7%; distant 20%). PD patterns were associated with prior CD19-CAR response: Distant relapse typically occurred after CR whereas local PD followed CD19-CAR refractory disease. Peripherally contrast enhancing CNSL (pCE) at CD19-CAR infusion correlated with refractory disease. Leptomeningeal involvement (LMD) was associated with recurrence after CR. On multivariable Cox regression, pCE (Hazard ratio [HR]: 2.75; 95%-Confidence interval [CI]: 1.08-6.68, p = 0.03) and LMD (HR: 2.72; CI: 1.20-6.25, p = 0.02) were independently associated with shorter CNS-PFS1. At progression, peripheral CD19+-B-cell aplasia suggested CD19-CAR persistence in…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 36 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free