PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
January 18, 2026Blood Advances1 citationsOpen Access

Improved survival and healthcare utilization with CAR-T vs historical care in relapsed-refractory large B-cell lymphoma

View Full Paper
TKTiana KordbachehKCKelvin KW ChanMCMichael Crump

Key Points

  • To evaluate the effectiveness of CAR-T immunotherapy compared to historical care in relapsed-refractory large B-cell lymphoma patients.
  • Conducted a propensity-weighted analysis comparing CAR-T patients to historical controls.
  • Compared 3-year overall survival, progression-free survival, and healthcare resource utilization metrics.
  • Patient data included 85 CAR-T recipients and 150 historical controls.
  • CAR-T patients had a 3-year overall survival of 59% compared to 10% in historical controls.
  • CAR-T patients had a 3-year progression-free survival of 48% versus 6% in historical controls.
  • Healthcare utilization metrics showed fewer hospital admissions, emergency visits, and ICU admissions for CAR-T patients.

Abstract

Anti-CD19 Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cell (CAR-T) immunotherapies have been funded in Canada for relapsed-refractory large B-cell lymphoma (RR-LBCL) after two lines of systemic therapy since late 2019. Real-world outcome data have been limited by lack of comparison to historical care. Using propensity-weighted analysis, we compared 3-year survival, healthcare resource utilization (HRU), and hospitalization events for patients with RR-LBCL treated with CAR-T (n=85) versus historical controls (HC) treated before CAR-T approval who would have been eligible based on present criteria (n=150). CAR-T 3-year overall survival (OS) was 59% (95% CI, 42-72; median not-reached) vs 10% (95% CI, 5-16%; median 4.4 months) in HC. 3-year CAR-T progression-free survival (PFS) was 48% (95% CI, 32-63; median 14.4 months) vs 6% (95% CI, 3-11; median 3.6 months) in HC. Hazard ratio (HR) for OS was 0.21 (95% CI, 0.14-0.31), and for PFS was 0.28 (95% CI, 0.2-0.39), comparing CAR-T vs HC. Per 1000 person-days at risk, CAR-T patients had fewer hospital admissions than HC (5.32 vs 9.1), emergency visits (2.33 vs 4.81), and intensive care admissions (0.53 vs 1.25), plus lower hospitalization rates for fever (0.93 vs 1.63), infection (1.48 vs 3.08), and neutropenia (0.66 vs 1.97; all p0.001). CAR-T produced a sustained survival benefit and, despite well-described CAR-T toxicities, HC experienced more hospitalization events, underscoring the lack of effective salvage treatments. As one of the largest real-world comparisons of RR-LBCL patients receiving CAR-T vs previous standard-of-care, this study demonstrated its improved effectiveness and reduced HRU.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Kordbacheh et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/696c7791eb60fb80d1395dc1https://doi.org/10.1182/bloodadvances.2025017401
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper