Evidence Hub

Efficacy of CAR-T-Cell-Based Immunotherapies in Patients With Glioma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Zadeh SMM, Kalantari S, Dastgerdi SS, Sharifi H, Mohammadi M, Roudi R, Shariftabrizi A, Kalantari A et al.

Journal of cellular and molecular medicine, 2026

306 participants

Abstract

Glioma is an aggressive intracranial malignancy associated with a poor prognosis and high mortality. Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has emerged as a promising immunotherapeutic approach for solid tumours; however, its application in glioma is constrained by several significant challenges. This study conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesise current methodologies and critically evaluate the clinical efficacy of CAR-T-cell-based immunotherapies in patients with glioma. A comprehensive literature search was performed across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Embase using MeSH terms along with relevant keywords. The review process adhered to the PRISMA framework, applying clearly defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Standard and augmented meta-analyses were employed to evaluate clinical outcomes, associated complications and potential publication bias. The study protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO under registration number CRD42022373297. Of 7723 retrieved records, 23 studies encompassing 306 patients with glioma met inclusion criteria. Efficacy analysis of 12 studies (n = 153 evaluable patients) demonstrated a pooled overall response rate of 16.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.0%-32.2%), driven by complete responses in 8.1% (95% CI, 3.5%-17.8%) and partial responses in 13.1% (95% CI, 6.3%-25.5%) of patients. Stable disease was achieved in 46.6% (95% CI, 34.3%-59.3%); progressive disease was observed in 43.9% (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: 306 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