Evidence Hub

Second primary malignancies after CAR T-cell therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 5,517 lymphoma and myeloma patients

T. Tix, Mohammad Alhomoud, R. Shouval, Edward R. Scheffer Cliff, M. Perales, D. M. Cordas dos Santos, K. Rejeski

Clinical Cancer Research, 2024

5,517 participants · 89 citations

Abstract

Purpose: CAR T-cell therapy is a potent immunotherapy for hematologic malignancies, but patients can develop long-term adverse events including second primary malignancies (SPMs) that impact morbidity and mortality. To delineate the frequency and subtypes of SPMs following CAR-T in lymphoma and myeloma, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. Design: A literature search was conducted in the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases. Following extraction of SPM cases and assignment of malignant origin, we analyzed SPM point estimates using random effect models. Results: We identified 326 SPMs across 5,517 patients from 18 clinical trials (CT) and 7 real-world studies (RWS). With a median follow-up of 21.7 months, the overall SPM point estimate was 5.8% (95%CI 4.7–7.2). SPM estimates were associated with treatment setting (CT>RWS), duration of follow-up, and number of prior treatment lines, which were each confirmed as independent study-level risk factors of SPM in a meta-regression model. A subgroup meta-analysis of the four trials that randomized CAR-T versus standard-of-care revealed a similar risk of SPM with either treatment strategy (p=0.92). In a distribution analysis of SPM subtypes, hematologic malignancies were the most common (37%), followed by solid tumors (27%) and non-melanoma skin cancers (16%). T-cell malignancies represented a small minority of events (1.5%). We noted disease- and product-specific variations in SPM distribution. Conclusions:…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 5,517 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