PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 8, 2026BMC Cancer1 citationsOpen Access

Prediction models for CAR-T Cell therapy-related adverse events in hematologic malignancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

View Full Paper
LYLinrui YeLLLuqing LiaoLWLulu Wang

Key Points

  • The aim is to evaluate the performance and methodological quality of prediction models for adverse events associated with CAR-T therapy.
  • Conducted a systematic search across seven databases and Google Scholar up to October 29, 2025.
  • Assessed risk of bias and applicability using the PROBAST tool.
  • Included only AUC results from external validation cohorts in the meta-analysis.
  • Performed subgroup and sensitivity analyses to explore heterogeneity.
  • Analyzed 29 studies reporting 26 distinct prediction models.
  • Pooled AUCs for external validation cohorts ranged from 0.60 to 0.79, indicating moderate model discrimination.
  • Ten models underwent external validation, with six reporting calibration.
  • Most common predictors included platelet count, C-reactive protein, and interleukin-6.
  • High risk of bias was indicated across all studies.

Abstract

Identifying patients at high risk of adverse events is crucial in chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy to enable early intervention. Despite the development of numerous prediction models, their methodological quality and performance remain systematically unassessed. We conducted a systematic search across seven databases and Google Scholar, covering all records up to October 29, 2025. The risk of bias and applicability were assessed using the Prediction model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Only the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC) results from external validation cohorts were included in the meta-analysis. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. Twenty-nine studies were included, reporting 26 distinct prediction models. The most common predictors were platelet count, C-reactive protein, and interleukin-6. Ten models underwent external validation, and six reported calibration. The PROBAST assessment indicated a high risk of bias across all studies. Pooled AUCs from external validation cohorts ranged from 0.60 to 0.79. Pooled AUC estimates indicate moderate discrimination of the included models. However, these estimates reflect discriminative ability under uncertainty rather than direct clinical readiness.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Ye et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69d5efd374eaea4b11a796f9https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-026-15877-8
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper