article · PubMed
Background: Relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (R/R DLBCL) remains a major therapeutic challenge, particularly among patients with high-risk molecular features or primary refractory disease. Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy has emerged as a promising treatment strategy; however, its comparative effectiveness versus salvage chemotherapy requires comprehensive evaluation. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 and MOOSE guidelines. Randomized controlled trials and high-quality comparative cohort studies evaluating CAR-T therapy versus salvage chemotherapy in adult patients with R/R DLBCL were included. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes included complete metabolic response (CMR), toxicity profiles, and multidisciplinary correlates (radiologic, laboratory, and histopathologic). Random-effects models, meta-regression analyses, and GRADE assessment were applied. Results: Eight studies (n = 2,150) were included. CAR-T therapy significantly improved PFS (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.42-0.71; p < 0.001) and OS (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54-0.86; p = 0.001). CMR rates were higher in the CAR-T group (56.0%) compared with salvage chemotherapy (24.5%) (RR 2.28, 95% CI 1.82-2.86; p < 0.001). Elevated inflammatory markers and tumor burden were associated with increased risk of immune-related toxicities. Subgroup analyses demonstrated greater benefit in primary refractory and double-hit lymphoma. CAR-T therapy was associated with cytokine release syndrome (9% grade ≥3) and ICANS (12%), whereas salvage chemotherapy demonstrated higher rates of hematologic toxicity. Conclusions: CAR-T therapy provides superior survival and response outcomes compared with salvage chemotherapy in R/R DLBCL, particularly in high-risk populations. Integration of radiologic, laboratory, and molecular predictors may enhance patient selection and optimize toxicity management.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.7417/ct.2026.2084
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.