-
International Journal of Molecular... Sep 2023The aim of this paper was to review the available evidence on the efficacy and safety of combined or sequential use of PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and... (Review)
Review
The aim of this paper was to review the available evidence on the efficacy and safety of combined or sequential use of PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and CAR-T cell therapies in relapsed/refractory (R/R) haematological malignancies. A systematic literature review was performed until 21 November 2022. Inclusion criteria: cohort studies/clinical trials aimed at evaluating the efficacy and/or safety of the combination of CAR-T cell therapy with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in R/R haematological malignancies, which had reported results. Those focusing only on ICI or CAR-T separately or evaluating the combination in other non-hematological solid tumours were excluded. We used a specific checklist for quality assessment of the studies, and then we extracted data on efficacy or efficiency and safety. A total of 1867 articles were identified, and 9 articles were finally included (early phase studies, with small samples of patients and acceptable quality). The main pathologies were B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (B-ALL) and B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (B-NHL). The most studied combination was tisagenlecleucel with pembrolizumab. In terms of efficacy, there is great variability: the combination could be a promising option in B-ALL, with modest data, and in B-NHL, although hopeful responses were received, the combination does not appear better than CAR-T cell monotherapy. The safety profile could be considered comparable to that described for CAR-T cell monotherapy.
Topics: Humans; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Receptors, Chimeric Antigen; Programmed Cell Death 1 Receptor; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Hematologic Neoplasms; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; T-Lymphocytes
PubMed: 37834228
DOI: 10.3390/ijms241914780 -
BMC Infectious Diseases Oct 2023Remdesivir is considered to be a specific drug for treating coronavirus disease 2019. This systematic review aims to evaluate the clinical efficacy and risk of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Remdesivir is considered to be a specific drug for treating coronavirus disease 2019. This systematic review aims to evaluate the clinical efficacy and risk of remdesivir alone and in combination with other drugs.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
The PubMed, Embase, SCIE, Cochrane Library, and American Clinical trial Center databases were searched up to 1 April 2022 to identify. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing the efficacy of remdesivir monotherapy and combination therapy with that of control drugs.
RESULTS
Ten RCTs and 32 observational studies were included in the analysis. Regarding the primary outcome, remdesivir use reduced mortality in patients with severe COVID-19 (RR = 0.57, 95% CI (0.48,0.68)) and shortened the time to clinical improvement (MD = -2.51, 95% CI (-2.75, -2.28)). Regarding other clinical outcomes, remdesivir use was associated with improved clinical status (RR = 1.08, 95%CI (1.01, 1.17)). Regarding safety outcomes, remdesivir use did not cause liver or kidney damage (RR = 0.87, 95%CI (0.68, 1.11)) (RR = 0.88, 95%CI (0.70,1.10)). Compared with remdesivir alone, remdesivir combined with other drugs (e.g., steroids, favipiravir, and convalescent plasma) had no effect on mortality.
CONCLUSION
The use of remdesivir can help to reduce the mortality of patients with severe COVID-19 and shorten the time to clinical improvement. There was no benefit of remdesivir combination therapy for other clinical outcomes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022322859.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Serotherapy; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37814214
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-023-08525-0 -
Systematic Reviews Sep 2023Adoptive cell therapy (ACT) is a rapidly evolving field. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) allow patients to report the impact of treatment on their quality of life...
INTRODUCTION
Adoptive cell therapy (ACT) is a rapidly evolving field. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) allow patients to report the impact of treatment on their quality of life during and after treatment. The systematic review aims to characterise the breadth of PROs utilised in ACT cancer care and provide guidance for the use of PROs in this patient population in the future.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase and CINAHL) in August 2021 by two reviewers. Search terms covered the following: "adoptive cell therapy", "patient-reported outcomes" and "cancer". Studies were included if they used a PRO measure to report the impact of ACT. The methodological quality of PROs was assessed. Forward and backward reference searching was conducted of any relevant papers. A quality grading scale was applied based on Cochrane and Revenson criteria for classification of high-quality studies. Key data from the studies and the included PROs was extracted by two researchers and tabulated.
RESULTS
One-hundred nine papers were identified; 11 papers were included. The majority of studies were single-arm trials or observational studies. Twenty-two different PROs were identified; none was ACT specific. The PROMIS-29 and EQ-5D were most commonly used. Few studies collected PRO data in the first 1-2 weeks. Four studies followed patients up for over a year, and a further four studies followed patients for approximately 3 months.
DISCUSSION
None of the PROs identified have been designed specifically for ACT. Appropriateness of existing instruments should be considered. It should be considered whether it is appropriate to collect data more frequently in the acute stage and then less frequently during follow-up. It should be considered if one tool is suitable at all time points or if the tool should be adapted depending on time since treatment. More research is needed to identify the exact timings of PRO assessments, and qualitative work with patients is needed to determine the most important issues for them throughout the treatment and follow-up.
Topics: Humans; Quality of Life; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Neoplasms; Patient Reported Outcome Measures
PubMed: 37777816
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-023-02337-8 -
Critical Reviews in Oncology/hematology Dec 2023A registered (PROSPERO - CRD42022346462) systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of all-grade infections amongst adult patients receiving CAR-T therapy for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
A registered (PROSPERO - CRD42022346462) systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of all-grade infections amongst adult patients receiving CAR-T therapy for haematological malignancy. Meta-analysis of pooled incidence, using random effects model, was conducted. Cochran's Q test examined heterogeneity. 2678 patients across 33 studies were included in the primary outcome. Forty-percent of patients (95% CI: 0.33 - 0.48) experienced an infection of any grade. Twenty-five percent of infection events (95% CI: 0.16 - 0.34) were severe. Late infections were as common as early infections (IRR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.38 - 1.98). All-grade infections, bacterial and viral infections were highest in myeloma patients at 57%, 37% and 28% respectively. Patients with NHL more commonly experienced late infections. Pooled rate of invasive candidiasis/yeast infections was 2% in studies utilizing anti-yeast prophylaxis. This review identified a high rate of all-grade infections, moderate rate of severe infections, and myeloma as a high-risk haematological group.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Multiple Myeloma; Receptors, Chimeric Antigen; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Hematologic Neoplasms; Hematology
PubMed: 37739146
DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2023.104134 -
Scientific Reports Aug 2023Insight into the clinical potential of convalescent plasma in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is important given the severe clinical courses in unvaccinated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Insight into the clinical potential of convalescent plasma in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is important given the severe clinical courses in unvaccinated and seronegative individuals. The aim of the study was to investigate whether there is a survival benefit of convalescent plasma therapy in COVID-19 patients. The authors independently assessed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified by the search strategy for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The binary primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Risk ratio (RR) of the convalescent plasma treatment (vs. best standard care) and its associated standard error (effect size) were calculated. A random-effects model was employed to statistically pool the effect sizes of the selected studies. We included 19 RCTs with 17,021 patients. The random-effects model resulted in an estimated pooled RR of 0.94 (95% CI 0.81-1.08, p = 0.33), showing no statistical evidence of the benefit of convalescent plasma therapy on all-cause mortality. Convalescent plasma therapy was not found to be effective in reducing all-cause mortality in COVID-19 patients. Further studies are needed to determine in which patients convalescent plasma therapy may lead to a reduction in mortality.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; COVID-19 Serotherapy; SARS-CoV-2; Immunization, Passive; Bias
PubMed: 37558729
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-40009-8 -
BMC Health Services Research Jul 2023Individual participant data meta-analyses (IPD-MAs), which involve harmonising and analysing participant-level data from related studies, provide several advantages over...
BACKGROUND
Individual participant data meta-analyses (IPD-MAs), which involve harmonising and analysing participant-level data from related studies, provide several advantages over aggregate data meta-analyses, which pool study-level findings. IPD-MAs are especially important for building and evaluating diagnostic and prognostic models, making them an important tool for informing the research and public health responses to COVID-19.
METHODS
We conducted a rapid systematic review of protocols and publications from planned, ongoing, or completed COVID-19-related IPD-MAs to identify areas of overlap and maximise data request and harmonisation efforts. We searched four databases using a combination of text and MeSH terms. Two independent reviewers determined eligibility at the title-abstract and full-text stages. Data were extracted by one reviewer into a pretested data extraction form and subsequently reviewed by a second reviewer. Data were analysed using a narrative synthesis approach. A formal risk of bias assessment was not conducted.
RESULTS
We identified 31 COVID-19-related IPD-MAs, including five living IPD-MAs and ten IPD-MAs that limited their inference to published data (e.g., case reports). We found overlap in study designs, populations, exposures, and outcomes of interest. For example, 26 IPD-MAs included RCTs; 17 IPD-MAs were limited to hospitalised patients. Sixteen IPD-MAs focused on evaluating medical treatments, including six IPD-MAs for antivirals, four on antibodies, and two that evaluated convalescent plasma.
CONCLUSIONS
Collaboration across related IPD-MAs can leverage limited resources and expertise by expediting the creation of cross-study participant-level data datasets, which can, in turn, fast-track evidence synthesis for the improved diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
10.17605/OSF.IO/93GF2.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Pandemics; COVID-19 Serotherapy; Prognosis; Publications
PubMed: 37415216
DOI: 10.1186/s12913-023-09726-8 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2023Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cells are an emerging therapy for the treatment of relapsed/refractory B-cell malignancies. While CD19 CAR-T cells have been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
UNLABELLED
Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cells are an emerging therapy for the treatment of relapsed/refractory B-cell malignancies. While CD19 CAR-T cells have been FDA-approved, CAR T-cells targeting CD22, as well as dual-targeting CD19/CD22 CAR T-cells, are currently being evaluated in clinical trials. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CD22-targeting CAR T-cell therapies. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to March 3rd 2022 for full-length articles and conference abstracts of clinical trials employing CD22-targeting CAR T-cells in acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). The primary outcome was best complete response (bCR). A DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model with arcsine transformation was used to pool outcome proportions. From 1068 references screened, 100 were included, representing 30 early phase studies with 637 patients, investigating CD22 or CD19/CD22 CAR T-cells. CD22 CAR T-cells had a bCR of 68% [95% CI, 53-81%] in ALL (n= 116), and 64% [95% CI, 46-81%] in NHL (n= 28) with 74% and 96% of patients having received anti-CD19 CAR T-cells previously in ALL and NHL studies respectively. CD19/CD22 CAR T-cells had a bCR rate of 90% [95% CI, 84-95%] in ALL (n= 297) and 47% [95% CI, 34-61%] in NHL (n= 137). The estimated incidence of total and severe (grade ≥3) CRS were 87% [95% CI, 80-92%] and 6% [95% CI, 3-9%] respectively. ICANS and severe ICANS had an estimated incidence of 16% [95% CI, 9-25%] and 3% [95% CI, 1-5%] respectively. Early phase trials of CD22 and CD19/CD22 CAR T-cells show high remission rates in ALL and NHL. Severe CRS or ICANS were (1)rare and dual-targeting did not increase toxicity. Variability in CAR construct, dose, and patient factors amongst studies limits comparisons, with long-term outcomes yet to be reported.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD42020193027.
Topics: Humans; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; T-Lymphocytes; Lymphoma, Non-Hodgkin; B-Lymphocytes; Precursor Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia-Lymphoma; Recurrence; Sialic Acid Binding Ig-like Lectin 2
PubMed: 37180149
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1178403 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2023We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate outcomes following chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapy in relapsed/refractory acute myeloid... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate outcomes following chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapy in relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (RR-AML).
METHODS
We performed a literature search on PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov. After screening 677 manuscripts, 13 studies were included. Data was extracted following PRISMA guidelines. Pooled analysis was done using the meta-package by Schwarzer et al. Proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed.
RESULTS
We analyzed 57 patients from 10 clinical trials and 3 case reports. The pooled complete and overall response rates were 49.5% (95% CI 0.18-0.81, I=65%) and 65.2% (95% CI 0.36-0.91, I=57%). The pooled incidence of cytokine release syndrome, immune-effector cell associated neurotoxicity syndrome, and graft-versus-host disease was estimated as 54.4% (95% CI 0.17-0.90, I=77%), 3.9% (95% CI 0.00-0.19, I=22%), and 1.6% (95%CI 0.00-0.21, I=33%), respectively.
CONCLUSION
CAR-T therapy has demonstrated modest efficacy in RR-AML. Major challenges include heterogeneous disease biology, lack of a unique targetable antigen, and immune exhaustion.
Topics: Humans; Receptors, Chimeric Antigen; Antigens, CD19; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute; Cell- and Tissue-Based Therapy
PubMed: 37168849
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1152457 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2023Convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Convalescent plasma may reduce mortality in patients with viral respiratory diseases, and is being investigated as a potential therapy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A thorough understanding of the current body of evidence regarding benefits and risks of this intervention is required.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of convalescent plasma transfusion in the treatment of people with COVID-19; and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach.
SEARCH METHODS
To identify completed and ongoing studies, we searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease Research Database, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, and the Epistemonikos COVID-19 L*OVE Platform. We searched monthly until 03 March 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating convalescent plasma for COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies that included populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)), as well as studies evaluating standard immunoglobulin.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies we used RoB 2. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, worsening and improvement of clinical status (for individuals with moderate to severe disease), hospital admission or death, COVID-19 symptoms resolution (for individuals with mild disease), quality of life, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, and serious adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
In this fourth review update version, we included 33 RCTs with 24,861 participants, of whom 11,432 received convalescent plasma. Of these, nine studies are single-centre studies and 24 are multi-centre studies. Fourteen studies took place in America, eight in Europe, three in South-East Asia, two in Africa, two in western Pacific and three in eastern Mediterranean regions and one in multiple regions. We identified a further 49 ongoing studies evaluating convalescent plasma, and 33 studies reporting as being completed. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease 29 RCTs investigated the use of convalescent plasma for 22,728 participants with moderate to severe disease. 23 RCTs with 22,020 participants compared convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, five compared to standard plasma and one compared to human immunoglobulin. We evaluate subgroups on detection of antibodies detection, symptom onset, country income groups and several co-morbidities in the full text. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone Convalescent plasma does not reduce all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.03; 220 per 1000; 21 RCTs, 19,021 participants; high-certainty evidence). It has little to no impact on need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.11; 296 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 14,477 participants; high-certainty evidence) and has no impact on whether participants are discharged from hospital (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.02; 665 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 12,721 participants; high-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on quality of life (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.14 to 4.14; 1 RCT, 483 participants; low-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no impact on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.42; 212 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 2392 participants; low-certainty evidence). It has probably little to no effect on the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.44; 135 per 1000; 6 RCTs, 3901 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19; 129 per 1000; 4 RCTs, 484 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces or increases the need for invasive mechanical ventilation, or death (RR 5.59, 95% CI 0.29 to 108.38; 311 per 1000; 1 study, 34 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and whether it reduces or increases the risk of serious adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.15; 236 per 1000; 3 RCTs, 327 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus human immunoglobulin Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.50; 464 per 1000; 1 study, 190 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild disease We identified two RCTs reporting on 536 participants, comparing convalescent plasma to placebo or standard care alone, and two RCTs reporting on 1597 participants with mild disease, comparing convalescent plasma to standard plasma. Convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (odds ratio (OR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.46; 8 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 536 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It may have little to no effect on admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.84; 117 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on time to COVID-19 symptom resolution (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.30; 483 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence), on the risk of grades 3 and 4 adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.19; 144 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of serious adverse events (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.94; 133 per 1000; 1 RCT, 376 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. Convalescent plasma versus standard plasma We are uncertain whether convalescent plasma reduces all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.75; 2 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1597 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It probably reduces admission to hospital or death within 28 days (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.75; 36 per 1000; 2 RCTs, 1595 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Convalescent plasma may have little to no effect on initial symptom resolution at up to day 28 (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.27; 1 RCT, 416 participants; low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any study reporting other key outcomes. This is a living systematic review. We search monthly for new evidence and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For the comparison of convalescent plasma versus placebo or standard care alone, our certainty in the evidence that convalescent plasma for individuals with moderate to severe disease does not reduce mortality and has little to no impact on clinical improvement or worsening is high. It probably has little to no effect on SAEs. For individuals with mild disease, we have very-low to low certainty evidence for most primary outcomes and moderate certainty for hospital admission or death. There are 49 ongoing studies, and 33 studies reported as complete in a trials registry. Publication of ongoing studies might resolve some of the uncertainties around convalescent plasma therapy for people with asymptomatic or mild disease.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Serotherapy; Virus Diseases; Immunoglobulins
PubMed: 37162745
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013600.pub6 -
Journal For Immunotherapy of Cancer Apr 2023The number of clinical studies evaluating the benefit of cytokine-induced killer cell (CIK) therapy, an adoptive immunotherapy, for colorectal cancer (CRC) is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The number of clinical studies evaluating the benefit of cytokine-induced killer cell (CIK) therapy, an adoptive immunotherapy, for colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasing. In many of these trials, CIK therapy was coadministered with conventional cancer therapy. The aim of this review is to systematically assess the available literature, in which the majority were only in Chinese, on CIK therapy for the management of CRC using meta-analysis and to identify parameters associated with successful CIK therapy implementation.
METHODS
Prospective and retrospective clinical studies which compared CIK therapy to non-CIK therapy in patients with CRC were searched for electronically on MEDLINE, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Data databases. The clinical endpoints of overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), OS and PFS rates, overall response rate (ORR), and toxicity were meta-analyzed using HR and relative ratio (RR), and subgroup analyses were performed using chi-square (χ) test and I-squared (I) statistics for study design, disease stage, cotherapy type, and timing of administration.
RESULTS
In total, 70 studies involving 6743 patients were analyzed. CIK therapy was favored over non-CIK therapy for OS (HR=0.59, 95% CI: 0.53 to 0.65), PFS (HR=0.55, 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.63), and ORR (RR=0.65, 95% CI: 0.57 to 0.74) without increasing toxicity (HR=0.59, 95% CI: 0.16 to 2.25). Subgroup analyses on OS and PFS by study design (randomized vs non-randomized study design), disease stage (Stage I-III vs Stage IV), cotreatment with dendritic cells (DCs) (CIK vs DC-CIK therapy), or timing of therapy administration (concurrent vs sequential with coadministered anticancer therapy) also showed that the clinical benefit of CIK therapy was robust in any subgroup analysis. Furthermore, cotreatment with DCs did not improve clinical outcomes over CIK therapy alone.
CONCLUSION
Compared with standard therapy, patients who received additional CIK cell therapy had favorable outcomes without increased toxicity, warranting further investigation into CIK therapy for the treatment of CRC.
Topics: Humans; Colorectal Neoplasms; Cytokine-Induced Killer Cells; Immunotherapy, Adoptive; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Clinical Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37117007
DOI: 10.1136/jitc-2023-006764