Peterson, Chelsea

Abstract Epcoritamab and glofitamab are CD20-directed bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) approved in the United States for relapsed or refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Limited data exist for patients treated outside of trials. Patients with R/R DLBCL receiving commercial epcoritamab or glofitamab between 1 January 2023 and 15 October 2024 were collected from 21 United States institutions. Among 245 patients, 156 received epcoritamab and 89 received glofitamab, 113 were refractory to front-line therapy, 40 had MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements, 147 received prior chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, and 174 patients would have been ineligible for registrational trials. The overall response rate (ORR) for epcoritamab and glofitamab was 51% (23% complete response, [CR]) and 53% (30% CR), respectively. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0-3.8 months), and median overall survival (OS) was 7.8 months (95% CI, 6.2-11.0 months). The 6-month PFS was 36% (95% CI, 30-44) and the 6-month OS was 60% (95% CI, 54-67). Both trial ineligibility and undetectable CD20 pre-BsAbs portended shorter PFS and OS. Of 17 individuals with paired biopsies, 15 (88.2%) lost CD20 expression after BsAbs with a median time to progression of 3.7 months. This analysis including patients with R/R DLBCL shows the ORR to CD3/CD20 BsAbs was comparable to pivotal trials, although PFS and OS were lower. Baseline undetectable levels of CD20 were associated with poor outcomes. These results demonstrate the activity of BsAbs in R/R DLBCL, and underscore the importance of target antigen expression.

Introduction: Bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) epcoritamab (Epco) and glofitamab (Glofit) are approved in the US for the treatment of patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory (r/r) large B-cell lymphomas (LBCLs) based upon high response rates and manageable toxicity profiles reported in pivotal trials. However, data on outcomes for pts treated with BsAbs outside of clinical trials are limited. As such, we sought to investigate the safety and efficacy of Epco and Glofit for the treatment of pts with r/r LBCLs in real-world settings. Methods: We performed a retrospective study including 19 US centers evaluating pts with r/r LBCLs receiving commercially available Epco or Glofit between 2023 and 2024. Baseline characteristics and outcomes were extracted from medical records. Efficacy outcomes included overall response rate (ORR), complete and partial response (CR, PR) rates, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), analyzed using the Kaplan Meier method. Key safety outcomes included cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS). Results: As of May 31, 2024, a total of 209 pts with r/r LBCLs were treated with Epco (n=139) or Glofit (n=70). Median age at BsAb start was 67 years (interquartile range [IQR] 58-76). Most were male (62.2%), and the most common histology was diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (n=155 [74.2%]). Of pts with molecular testing (n=168), 34 (20.2%) had double/triple hit lymphoma. Most (78.9%) had Ann Arbor stage III-IV disease and 91% had an ECOG performance status of ≤1. Median number of lines of treatment before BsAb was 3 (range 1-12). Of pts with known response assessment following front-line therapy, 54 (32.1%) had primary refractory disease, defined as failure to achieve PR or CR to front-line therapy. Most pts (n=126 [60.3%]) received prior chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy and 21 (10.0%) received prior autologous hematopoietic progenitor cell transplant. CD20 expression was assessed in 106 biopsies (50.7%) prior to BsAb and was positive in 90 (84.9%). A total of 172 pts were response-evaluable. The best ORR was 50.6%, with CR in 41 (23.8%), PR in 46 (26.7%), stable disease in 10 (5.8%), and progressive disease in 75 (43.6%). The ORR and CR rates were 49% and 23% for Epco, and 53% and 25% for Glofit, respectively. With a median follow-up of 5 months, the median PFS was 2.7 months (95% CI 2.0, 3.9) and median OS was 7.2 months (95% CI 6.1, not reached [NR]). The estimated PFS and OS at six months were 35% (95% CI 29%-43%) and 59% (95% CI 52%-67%), respectively. For pts who relapsed after CAR T-cell therapy, the median PFS and OS were 2.5 (95% CI 1.8, 4.7) and 7.8 (95% CI 6.2, NR) months, respectively. Pts without detectable CD20 expression via immunohistochemistry or flow cytometry prior to BsAb therapy had significantly inferior outcomes (PFS 1.1 vs 3.4 months, P < 0.001 and OS 1.3 vs 13 months, P < 0.001) compared to pts with detectable CD20. CRS of any grade occurred in 82 pts (39.2%), corresponding to 51.1% and 28.6% of pts treated with Epco and Glofit, respectively. Grade ≥3 CRS occurred in 9 (4.3%), all of whom received Epco. CRS was treated with tocilizumab in 43 pts (53.1%). ICANS occurred in 24 (11.5%) pts; any grade ICANS occurred in 13.7% and 7.1% of pts treated with Epco and Glofit, respectively. Grade ≥3 ICANS occurred in 6 pts (2.9%), 5 of which received Epco (3.6%). Of those experiencing ICANS, 66.0% were treated with corticosteroids. Two pts had deaths attributed to ICANS and one to CRS. A total of 122 (58.4%) pts discontinued therapy after a median of 3 cycles (range 0-48), 91 (74.6%) due to disease progression and 31 (25.4%) due to adverse events (15 due to infection, 3 due to ICANS, 2 due to CRS, and 11 for other reasons). Conclusions: In this heavily pretreated group with adverse disease features and high rate of CAR T exposure, the response rates, PFS, and OS following BsAb therapy were lower compared to pivotal trials. Poor outcomes were observed for those without detectable CD20. Rates of ICANS and grade ≥3 CRS were higher than reported in pivotal trials, as was the rate of discontinuation of therapy due to adverse events. Future efforts to improve outcomes may include intensified dose escalation protocols to more rapidly achieve disease control, combination therapies, and characterization of clinicopathologic factors that predict response to BsAb to identify subgroups of pts who can derive maximal benefit from these agents.

BACKGROUND: Cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy is the standard of care for muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of the two most commonly used cisplatin-based regimens; gemcitabine, and cisplatin (GC) vs. accelerated (dose-dense: dd) or conventional methotrexate, vinblastine, adriamycin, and cisplatin (MVAC). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and other sources. Outcomes of interest included overall survival, downstaging to pT≤1, pathologic complete response (pCR), recurrence, and toxicity. Meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effects model. RESULTS: We identified 24 studies. Efficacy outcomes were comparable between MVAC and GC for MIBC. dd-MVAC was associated with favorable efficacy compared to GC in terms of downstaging (OR 1.45; 95%CI 1.15–1.82) and all-cause mortality at longest follow-up (OR 0.63; 95%CI 0.44–0.81). However, GC was associated with a better safety profile in terms of febrile neutropenia (OR 0.32; 95%CI 0.13–0.80), anemia (OR 0.32; 95%CI 0.18–0.54), nausea and vomiting (OR 0.27; 95%CI 0.12–0.65) compared to dd-MVAC. Compared to MVAC, patients receiving GC had an increased risk of developing grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia (OR 4.70; 95%CI 1.59–13.89) and a lower risk of nausea and vomiting (OR 0.05; 95%CI 0.01–0.31). Certainty in the estimates was very low for most outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy and safety outcomes were comparable between MVAC and GC for MIBC. Including non-peer-reviewed studies showed higher efficacy with dd-MVAC. A phase III randomized trial comparing the two regimens is needed to guide clinical practice.

e16522 Background: Cisplatin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy is the standard of care for muscle invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) in cisplatin-eligible patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis provide an updated efficacy and safety comparison between the two most commonly used cisplatin-based regimens; dose-dense (dd) or conventional MVAC versus GC. Methods: We searched different databases for studies comparing MVAC versus GC in the neoadjuvant setting. Outcomes of interest included overall survival, downstaging to pT≤1, pathologic complete response (pCR), recurrence, and toxicity. Meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effects model. Results: We identified 24 studies from inception to March 2020; among them 17 were peer reviewed and 7 were only reported as abstracts in national or international meetings, including a phase 3, randomized-controlled clinical trial. Among peer-reviewed published studies, efficacy outcomes such as OS, downstaging and pCR were comparable between conventional MVAC and GC for MIBC. If including non-peer-reviewed studies, dd-MVAC was associated with favorable efficacy compared to GC in terms of downstaging (OR 1.45; 95% CI 1.15–1.82), and OS at longest follow-up (OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.44–0.81). However, GC was associated with a better safety profile in terms of febrile neutropenia (OR 0.32; 95% CI 0.13–0.80), anemia (OR 0.32; 95% CI 0.18–0.54), nausea and vomiting (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.12–0.65) compared to dd-MVAC. Compared to MVAC, patients receiving GC had an increased risk of developing grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia (OR 4.70; 95% CI 1.59–13.89) and a lower risk of nausea and vomiting (OR 0.05; 95% CI 0.01-0.31). Certainty in the estimates was very low for most outcomes. Conclusions: Among peer-reviewed published studies, efficacy and safety outcomes were comparable between conventional MVAC and GC for MIBC. However, If including non-peer-reviewed studies, this analysis showed higher efficacy with dd-MVAC. A phase III randomized trial comparing the two regimens is needed to guide clinical practice