ArticleInternational journal of hematology2025
Outcomes of allogeneic SCT versus tisagenlecleucel in patients with R/R LBCL and poor prognostic factors.
Article in International journal of hematology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Allogeneic transplantation after failure of chimeric antigen receptor-T cells and exposure to bispecific antibodies: Feasibility, safety and survival outcomes.British journal of haematology · 2025Article
- Nanodrug Delivery Systems for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Therapy.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated the efficacy of tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT) for patients with relapsed and/or refractory (r/r) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) with poor prognostic factors, defined as performance status (PS) ≥ 2, multiple extranodal lesions (EN), chemorefractory disease, or higher lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). Overall, the allo-SCT group demonstrated worse progression-free survival (PFS), higher non-relapse mortality, and a similar relapse/progression rate. Notably, the tisa-cel group showed better PFS than the allo-SCT group among patients with chemorefractory disease (3.2 vs. 2.0 months, p = 0.092) or higher LDH (4.0 vs. 2.0 months, p = 0.018), whereas PFS in the two cellular therapy groups was similar among those with PS ≥ 2 or multiple EN. Survival time after relapse post-cellular therapy in patients with poor prognostic factors was 1.6 with allo-SCT and 4.6 months with tisa-cel. These findings were confirmed in a propensity score matching cohort. In conclusion, tisa-cel resulted in better survival than allo-SCT in patients with poor prognostic factors. However, patients who relapsed post-cellular therapy had dismal outcomes regardless of therapy. Further strategies are warranted to improve outcomes in these patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.