ArticleBlood advances2025
Patient-reported outcomes in patients with hematologic malignancies treated with CAR T-cell therapy in Europe.
Article in Blood advances, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Longitudinal patient-reported outcomes and quality-of-life trajectories over 2 years in CAR-T therapy recipients.Blood neoplasia · 2026Trial
- Patient preferences for treatment‑free intervals in multiple myeloma: mixed‑methods insights on monitoring trade‑offs and supportive care improvements.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Quality of Life in CAR-T Cell Therapy.Hematology reports · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
38 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abstractPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) give direct insights into the treatment's impact on patient's life and complement clinical outcomes. However, since the advent of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CAR-T), PROs have been underreported. Particularly, little is known about long-term health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and dimensions such as mental- and social well-being, working life, and financial burden. Therefore, we evaluated multidimensional PROs in a cross-sectional study among European patients who received CAR-T for hematologic malignancies. Patients completed validated questionnaires (EQ-5D-5L/EORTC-QLQ-C30/PCL-5/modified-iPCQ) and ad hoc items on treatment experiences, unmet care needs, and HRQoL. The survey was available online (January-October 2023) in 7 languages. Outcomes were compared with the European general population, a matched CAR-T-naive cohort with hematologic malignancies and across subgroups, using established thresholds for clinically important differences/problems and regression models. From 10 European countries, 389 patients participated (>1 year post-CAR-T: 56%). Mean EQ-VAS was 73.1 (standard deviation, 18.5). HRQoL was similar or better than reference cohorts, except for role-, social-, and cognitive-functioning. Physical-functioning problems were most frequently reported (41%), particularly by women, older individuals, and those who experienced neurotoxicity. The latter subgroup also reported more cognitive- and social-functioning problems. Anxiety regarding disease recurrence (76%), infections (66%) and long-term side effects (59%) was common. Among working-age patients, 72% could continue paid work after CAR-T. Younger patients (32%) reported more financial difficulties than older patients (9%). This study shows favorable general HRQoL after CAR-T compared with reference cohorts. However, a notable proportion of patients experienced problems in physical-, mental- and social well-being. We identified high-risk subgroups and care needs that should be addressed during follow-up.
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.