Systematic review identifies key prognostic factors influencing outcomes in relapsed multiple myeloma patients receiving CAR T-cell or BsAb therapies.
INTRODUCTION: Multiple myeloma is associated with substantial disease burden and frequent relapses, despite therapeutic advances. As the rapidly evolving evidence base for chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell and bispecific antibody (BsAb) therapies is dominated by single-arm trials and real-world studies, decision-makers increasingly rely on understanding key prognostic factors (i.e. demographic and clinical characteristics associated with outcomes) to inform indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs). METHODS: Guided by a targeted review and clinician input to identify factors of interest, we systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and pertinent conferences for trials and observational studies evaluating CAR T-cell and/or BsAb therapies. Eligible studies presented potential factors in relation to efficacy, survival, and/or safety outcomes. Meta-analyses summarized factor-outcome associations, overall and by treatment class. RESULTS: From 102 publications (43 studies), analyses were feasible for 15 potential factors. Several statistically significant factor-outcome dyads were identified, including factors of age, cytogenetic risk, ECOG PS, ISS/R-ISS stage, bone marrow plasma cell burden, extramedullary disease, ferritin, prior anti-BCMA exposure, and triple-class refractory status. Associations varied by outcome and, in some cases, by treatment class. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights prognostic factors, identified through a systematic and transparent process, that may influence ITCs and policy decision-making in later-line multiple myeloma. REGISTRATION: This Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023446880). Only pilot work and no formal review or data collection occurred prior to the registration.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Patel et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: