Résumé
The expansion and persistence of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cells in patients are associated with response, toxicity, and long-term efficacy. As such, the tools used to detect CAR T-cells following infusion are fundamental for optimizing this therapeutic approach. Nevertheless, despite the critical value of this essential biomarker, there is significant variability in CAR T-cell detection methods as well as the frequency and intervals of testing. Furthermore, heterogeneity in the reporting of quantitative data adds layers of complexity that limit intertrial and interconstruct comparisons. We sought to assess the heterogeneity of CAR T-cell expansion and persistence data in a scoping review using the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Focusing on 21 clinical trials from the USA, featuring a Food and Drug Administration-approved CAR T-cell construct or one of its predecessors, 105 manuscripts were screened and 60 were selected for analysis, based on the inclusion of CAR T-cell expansion and persistence data. Across the array of CAR T-cell constructs, flow cytometry and quantitative PCR were identified as the two primary techniques for detecting CAR T-cells. However, despite apparent uniformity in detection techniques, the specific methods used were highly variable. Detection time points and the number of evaluated time points also ranged markedly and quantitative data were often not reported. To evaluate whether subsequent manuscripts from a trial resolved these issues, we analyzed all subsequent manuscripts reporting on the 21 clinical trials, recording all expansion and persistence data. While additional detection techniques–including droplet digital PCR, NanoString, and single-cell RNA sequencing–were reported in follow-up publications, inconsistencies with respect to detection time points and frequency remained, with a significant amount of quantitative data still not readily available. Our findings highlight the critical need to establish universal standards for reporting on CAR T-cell detection, especially in early phase studies. The current reporting of non-interconvertible metrics and limited provision of quantitative data make cross-trial and cross-CAR T-cell construct comparisons extremely challenging. Establishing a standardized approach for collecting and reporting data is urgently needed and would represent a substantial advancement in the ability to improve outcomes for patients receiving CAR T-cell therapies.