Evidence Hub

Ctim-26. toxicity profile of CAR-T cell therapy in glioblastoma: a meta-analysis of cytokine release syndrome, neurotoxicity, and adverse events

M. Jaramillo, Z. Sarfraz, M. Ganiyani, F. Mustafayev, K. Qidwai, K. Mustafayev, M. Ahluwalia

Neuro-Oncology, 2025

147 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy is under investigation for glioblastoma (GBM), with early-phase trials reporting varied toxicity profiles. While CAR-T has demonstrated potential in hematologic malignancies, its safety in GBM remains incompletely characterized. This study meta-analyzes adverse event profiles, including cytokine release syndrome (CRS), neurological events, and overall toxicity in GBM.

A systematic search was conducted through May 30, 2025, using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and conference proceedings from ASCO, SNO, ESMO, and AACR. Eligible studies were clinical trials of CAR-T therapy in GBM reporting CRS, neurological events, or any grade adverse events. Pooled incidence rates were calculated using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic, with values of 0–25% considered low, 26–50% moderate, and >50% high. Between-study variance was estimated using the Q-profile method with Hartung-Knapp adjustment.

Twelve phase I trials (N=147) were analyzed. The median age was 55 years (IQR: 42.8–60.5), and 35.3% of participants were female. Dose escalation strategies were reported in 46% of studies, while the remaining 54% used fixed or predefined dosing. Routes of CAR-T administration included intravenous (46%), intraventricular (23%), intracavitary (15%), and multiple or combined routes (15%). The median time from diagnosis to CAR-T infusion was 12.0 months (IQR: 11.05–15.0). The pooled incidence of CRS was 20.3% (95% CI:…

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: 147 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