Gupta, S. C.

Abstract Background Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) and bispecific antibody (BsAb) therapies are both effective for patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) follicular lymphoma (FL), but differ in treatment schedules and associated “time toxicity,” or contact days spent physically interacting with the healthcare system. While contact days can be estimated from clinical trials, real-world data provides a more nuanced depiction of treatment-related time burden, which may guide treatment decision-making. The comparative time toxicity of CAR-T vs BsAb in R/R FL is not defined. Methods We conducted a multicenter retrospective study of adults with R/R grade 1-3A FL who received standard-of-care CAR-T (axi-cel, tisa-cel, liso-cel) or BsAb (mosunetuzumab, epcoritamab) in the third-line or later setting before Jan 1, 2025. Time toxicity was defined as outpatient or inpatient days with physical health care system contact, counting multiple visits on the same day as only one day. All days after treatment initiation were counted, regardless of disease progression, therapy completion, or relation to FL therapy. Median contact days over 1-year time horizon were compared, stratified by CAR-T vs BsAb, prior lines of therapy (LOT, 2 vs 3+), and time intervals (0-1, 1-3, 3-6, 6-9, and 9-12 months). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from day of CAR-T infusion or day 1, cycle 1 for BsAb. Cox regression and propensity matching (by age, ECOG, refractory to prior LOT, POD24) were used to assess predictors and survival associations with contact days. Results Among 209 patients from 15 U.S. academic centers, median age was 64, 37% were female, 61% received CAR-T (80% axi-cel, 7% liso-cel, 13% tisa-cel) and 39% BsAb (93% mosun, 7% epcor). Most had Grade 1-2 FL (72%), advanced stage (84%), and extranodal disease (51%). Median prior LOT was 3 (range 2-15), 41% were refractory to prior LOT, and 52% had POD24. Median number of BsAb doses was 10 (range 1-36). Patients receiving BsAb were significantly older (p<.01) and had higher CIRS comorbidity scores (p<.02) in both 2 and 3+ prior LOT cohorts, and had higher ECOG scores (p=.01) and were less likely to be refractory to prior LOT (p=.029) in 3+ LOT cohort. There were no differences in POD24 rates between CAR-T and BsAb. Median PFS for the entire cohort was 3.6 yrs; median OS was not reached. In the 2 prior LOT cohort (N=75), 60% received CAR-T and 40% BsAb. With median follow-up of 1.5 years, median PFS was not reached for CAR-T and 1.6 yrs for BsAb (p<.0001). In the 3+ prior LOT cohort (N=134), 62% received CAR-T and 38% BsAb. With median follow-up of 2 yrs, median PFS was 3.6 yrs for CAR-T and 1.6 yrs for BsAb (p=.0044). In propensity matched analysis, PFS was shorter for BsAb in both 2 LOT (HR 9.0, 95% CI 1.14-71.04, p=.037) and 3+ LOT (HR 3.25, 95% CI 1.06-9.97, p=.039) cohorts as compared to CAR-T. There were no significant differences in OS between CAR-T and BsAb. Median contact days were significantly higher for CAR-T vs BsAb in the 0-1 month interval: 19 vs 8 days in 2 LOT (p<.0001) and 18 vs 7 days in 3+ LOT (p<.0001) cohorts. There were no differences in contact days between CAR-T vs BsAb in subsequent time intervals. Over 1 year, CAR-T had significantly more time toxicity than BsAb: median 51 vs 36 contact days in 2 LOT (p<.0001) and 64 vs 38 days in 3L+ LOT (p<.0001) cohorts; these remained significant in the matched analysis. B symptoms (p=.04) and Grade ≥3 cytopenias (p=.007) were associated with higher contact days in 3+ LOT cohort in univariable analysis. Higher contact days were associated with inferior PFS (HR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02, p=.032) and OS (HR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02, p=.038) in 3+ LOT cohort regardless of treatment type. Discussion In this large real-world cohort of patients with R/R FL, CAR-T therapy resulted in better PFS but more time toxicity over the first year as compared to BsAb therapy. Excess time toxicity from CAR-T was driven by more contact days in the first month of treatment. This study provides benchmark data for counseling patients about expected time burden of CAR-T (51-64 days) and BsAb (36-38 days) over the first year of these therapies. Further, with superior PFS of CAR-T in this study and minimal impact of time toxicity on survival outcomes, these data can be used to better support shared decision-making in R/R FL by addressing patient preferences regarding both contact days as well as duration of disease control.

207 Background: CAR-T & bispecific antibodies (BsAb) for large B-cell lymphoma offer deep responses, but have unique toxicities requiring close monitoring. Different practice settings have varied strategies for managing these toxicities, leading to increased costs, healthcare resource use, & reduced quality of life. With no direct comparison, rationale for therapy selection may vary. This study explores provider choices, sequencing strategies & access barriers. Methods: A survey of US-based Hematologists was conducted on practice demographics, therapy availability, preferences, & barriers in LBCL. Responses were analyzed across clinical scenarios. Results: Responses were received from 45 physicians. Availability of CAR-T & BsAb varied with 75% prescribing both, & only BsAb being available at 9% of providers’ centers. There was a strong preference for CAR-T over BsAb—higher among academic vs. nonacademic providers (96% vs. 78%; p = 0.03) & at CAR-T vs. non-CAR-T centers (100% vs. 72%; p = 0.001). Even at BsAb-only centers, preference leaned toward CAR-T, though notably lower compared to CAR-T centers. Among centers without either, 86% preferred CAR-T. Practice volume had no impact. Reasons for favoring CAR-T included perceived better outcomes (55%), shorter treatment (26%), center choice (19%), more experience (48%), & curative potential (21%). BsAb selection was driven by CAR-T unavailability & logistical barriers (distance to specialized center, insurance delays, referral complexity, manufacturing time, & hospitalization needs). Axi-cel was preferred by 69% ( p = 0.0001) vs. other CAR-T for third-line or later due to experience with use, response rates, center choice, & logistical ease. Liso-cel (26%) & Tisa-cel (2%) were chosen for perceived favorable toxicity over Axi-cel. Axi-cel was also preferred second-line vs. Liso-cel (73% vs. 24%; p < 0.0001) for similar reasons. Among BsAb, Epcoritamab was favored by 56% for administration ease (subcutaneous), experience, & center preference; Glofitamab by 42% for shorter duration, experience, & center preference. There was no difference by academic vs nonacademic practice & volume for both CAR-T & BsAb. In patients with prior non-CAR-T anti-CD19 therapy, providers chose CD19 CAR-T over CD20 BsAb (80% vs. 18%; p < 0.0001). For relapse after second-line CAR-T, 78% providers preferred BsAb as the next line over other options ( p < 0.0001) due to more favorable response rates, toxicity profile, & experience with use. Providers prioritized response rates, survival, & toxicity profile in their treatment decisions. Logistics, duration, frequency, & cost were less important. There were no differences based on practice setting & CAR-T experience. Conclusions: Despite higher preference for CAR-T due to perceived superior outcomes, access barriers exist. Efforts to streamline referral pathways, logistics, & expand availability are crucial to improve outcomes.

Background: Despite effective front-line therapies, DLBCL & MM have high relapse rates. Novel therapies like CAR-T & bispecific antibodies (BsAb) offer deep & durable remission compared to salvage therapies, but have a unique toxicity profile (TP) that requires monitoring. With no head-to-head trials, the rationale for therapy selection may vary. This study explores provider choices, sequencing preferences, & access barriers. Methods: Two anonymous surveys (MM and DLBCL) of US-based Hematologists were conducted from 2/2024 to 6/2024, on practice settings, CAR-T & BsAb availability, treatment preferences & barriers. Responses were analyzed to assess preferences across clinical scenarios. Results: Surveys were completed by 37 MM & 45 DLBCL providers. Most were at centers offering both CAR-T & BsAb. Most gave CAR-T inpatient, & BsAb outpatient. CAR-T was given by 73% MM providers & 66% DLBCL (92% used Cilta-cel, 96% used Ide-cel; 100% used Axi-cel, 90% used Liso-cel & 73% Tisa-cel). In MM, 78% used Teclistamab, 60% Talquetamab & 24% Elranatamab. In DLBCL, 62% used Epcoritamab & 40% Glofitamab. Providers preferred CAR-T over BsAb in MM after 4+ prior lines of therapy (LOT) (89%), & in DLBCL after 2+ prior LOT (93%). CAR-T was favored more among academic providers & those at CAR-T centers. Practice volume did not impact selection. Among providers at centers with BsAb-only, CAR-T was preferred by 60% (MM) and 50% (DLBCL). Providers at centers without both favored CAR-T (MM: 75%, DLBCL: 86%). CAR-T was chosen for better outcomes, short treatment, center choice, & prior experience. Other factors that influenced decisions were lower incidence of cytopenia/infection & “BsAb effective post-CAR-T, less so vice versa” (MM), & “curative potential of CAR-T” (DLBCL). Logistical barriers & institutional constraints influenced BsAb selection: CAR-T unavailability, access to specialized centers, referral complexity, insurance delay, manufacturing delay & hospitalization needs. In MM, 78% providers preferred Cilta-cel over Ide-cel, especially academic providers & those with CAR-T experience. CAR-T volume did not impact selection. Cilta-cel was preferred due to perceived better response rate (RR), more experience, “progression-free survival (PFS) benefit”, center choice, & logistical issues with Ide-cel. Ide-cel was selected due to center choice, favorable TP & insurance preference. Teclistamab was preferred by 78% due to more experience, better RR, TP & center choice, Elranatamab by 11% (better TP, RR, & “PFS”), & Talquetamab by 11% due to having a non-BCMA target. Academic providers preferred Teclistamab (89% vs 50%), & nonacademic providers preferred Talquetamab (38% vs 4%) and Elranatamab (13% vs 8%). In DLBCL after 2+ LOT, 69% favored Axi-cel due to prior experience, RR, center choice, & logistical issues with other products. Liso-cel & Tisa-cel were chosen by 27% & 2%, respectively, due to favorable TP. Axi-cel was also preferred 2nd line by 73% for similar reasons, while 24% favored Liso-cel for its favorable TP. Epcoritamab was preferred by 56% (subcutaneous injection, more experience & center choice) & Glofitamab by 42% (shorter treatment duration, easy administration, more experience, & center choice). Practice setting & volume did not impact selection between products in DLBCL. InBCMA-naïve MM pts, majority (97%) chose an anti-BCMA agent over GPRC5D due to better RR, TP, prior experience, & center choice. InBCMA-exposed pts, most (92%) favored an anti-GPRC5D agent. In contrast in DLBCL, 80% chose CD19 CAR-T after prior CD19-directed therapy, & 18% chose CD20 BsAb. Therefore, antigen escape was less of a concern in DLBCL vs MM. For relapse after 2nd line CAR-T in DLBCL, 78% preferred BsAb over other salvage options due to better RR, TP, & more experience. Providers prioritized RR, survival, & TP in decision making. Treatment logistics, duration, frequency, & cost were less crucial. MM providers also prioritized quality of life, which was less so in DLBCL. There were no differences in priority based on practice setting & experience with CAR-T. Conclusion: The study highlights factors influencing therapy choices in MM & DLBCL. Despite CAR-T's potential for better outcomes, significant access barriers exist. Efforts to streamline referral pathways, logistics, & expanding availability are crucial to improve outcomes. Understanding these preferences & barriers can guide future management strategies.