SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2026
Efficacy-safety trade-off and patient selection: a meta-analysis informing clinical choice between CAR-T and bispecific antibodies for R/R B-NHL.
Synthesis in Frontiers in immunology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This meta-analysis compared chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy and bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) for relapsed/refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R B-NHL), focusing on efficacy and safety. We analyzed 59 phase I/II trials involving 2,914 patients. CAR-T achieved higher ORR (72% [95% CI 67-77%] vs. 50% [38-62%]) and CR (54% [49-59%] vs. 33% [23-46%]) than BsAbs. However, it was associated with higher rates of grade ≥3 CRS (8% [6-11%] vs. 4% [3-7%]), ICANS (12% [9-16%] vs. 6% [2-18%]), and neurotoxicity (8% [6-10%] vs. 6% [2-13%]). Among CAR-T constructs, dual-targeting products (CD19/20 and CD19/22) showed higher efficacy with more varied toxicity profiles; among BsAbs, CD3×CD20 had a more favorable safety profile relative to CD3×CD19. These results suggest CAR-T may be preferable when deep remission is the priority, whereas BsAbs could be a better fit for frail patients or those seeking outpatient care with lower toxicity risks. Treatment selection should be tailored to patient characteristics, including age, tumor burden, and comorbidities. Together, these results provide a comprehensive, evidence-based framework to guide individualized treatment and sequencing in clinical practice.
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.