Page 1266: In the paragraph that begins with “Results from,” the passage “In practice, however, we will still see patients who have received 1 to 2 cycles of salvage chemotherapy (not allowed in ZUMA7 or TRANSFORM) before consideration of a cell therapy, who do not fit the early chemotherapy failure criteria in those trials (ie, refractory to or relapsed within 12 months of first-line chemotherapy), or who cannot readily access a CAR T-cell center. Indeed, the EFS was not different between the standard of care and CAR T cells in the BELINDA trial, which had a design similar to those of ZUMA-7 and TRANSFORM except that it permitted salvage chemotherapy prior to administration of another potent CD19 CAR T-cell product, tisagenlecleucel.8” should read, “In practice, however, we will still see patients who have received salvage chemotherapy (not allowed in ZUMA7 and only 1 cycle in TRANSFORM, which is not typical salvage) before consideration of a cell therapy, who do not fit the early chemotherapy failure criteria in those trials (ie, refractory to or relapsed within 12 months of first-line chemotherapy), or who cannot readily access a CAR T-cell center. Indeed, the EFS was not different between the standard of care and CAR T cells in the BELINDA trial, which had a design similar to those of ZUMA-7 and TRANSFORM except that it permitted standard salvage chemotherapy (∼48% of patients received 2 or more salvage cycles) prior to administration of another potent CD19 CAR T-cell product, tisagenlecleucel.8” The errors have been corrected in the online version of the article.

Sign in via your Institution