Retrospective analysis reveals increased vascular inflammation post CAR-T therapy, suggesting the need for cardiovascular monitoring.
Background Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell therapy has shown effectiveness in advanced hematological malignancies. As well, evidence is growing on potential cardiotoxic implications of CAR-T cell exposure. However, effects of this therapy on vascular inflammation are unknown. Methods Patients treated with CAR-T cells infusion for relapsed or refractory B- cell aggressive lymphoma with available baseline and 30-day post CAR-T 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT) were retrospectively analysed. Maximum standardized uptake values (SUVmax) of arterial and venous walls were calculated. Routine blood analysis results were collected and overtime changes in inflammatory markers were expressed as a Delta (Δ) during the first 14 days after infusion. The population enrolled was stratified according to the complete response to cellular therapy. Results Among the 35 patients finally included, segment-by-segment comparisons between baseline and 30-day PET/CT did not differ significantly. Veins exhibited lower mean SUV values compared to arteries (β = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.27, -0.08], p < 0.001). The interaction effect between time and response was statistically significant (β = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.27, -0.03], p = 0.015); in particular, responders showed an overall increase in SUV values over time, while non-responders exhibited a decrease. As well, imaging modifications observed through PET/CT between these groups were accompanied by consensual changes in inflammatory and endothelial damage biomarkers (e.g., C reactive protein and mEASIX score). Conclusions Our results highlight higher vascular inflammation in patients considered as disease-responders after CAR-T cell therapy. These preliminary observations require confirmation in large-scale, prospective studies and call for patient-tailored cardiovascular surveillance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Camilli et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: