New data from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) sheds light on CAR T-cell therapy outcomes across different treatment sites. Dr. Porter reviewed the findings, comparing them to his center’s experience with community-based access.
At the University of Pennsylvania, outcomes across academic and community sites have been consistent. Toxicities, infection rates, and response rates align closely, despite the academic site treating older, sicker patients.
The ASCO analysis drew on a large national claims database, comparing FACT-accredited and non-FACT-accredited centers. The patient counts were, as expected, very different: over 6,700 patients at FACT-accredited centers versus just over 100 at non-accredited sites. What mattered more to Dr. Porter was that the patient populations themselves looked alike, with similar toxicities and infection rates between the two groups.
Dr. Porter notes the study’s limitations, as it relies on retrospective health claims data. Still, he notes that certain elements, including codes for cytokine release syndrome and ICANS, tend to be reliable, and the database can reasonably estimate a patient’s next line of treatment. Given those caveats, Dr. Porter calls it encouraging that non-FACT-accredited centers appear to be treating a comparable patient population with comparable toxicity and risk, without excess harm.
For patients, this could mean more treatment options closer to home. However, Dr. Porter emphasizes that the study doesn’t prove equivalence across all settings. What it does show, he says, is that the non-FACT-accredited centers now offering CAR T-cell therapy, at least the roughly 109 patients reported at ASCO, are delivering care at the same level as academic centers.
