Ghosh, Nilanjan

Abstract Secondary central nervous system (CNS) large B-cell lymphoma (SCNSL) occurs in the de novo setting, as a CNS-isolated relapse, or synchronous (concomitant CNS and systemic) relapse. SCNSL is a devastating event without therapeutic consensus. Thus, we aimed to evaluate treatment outcomes in an international cohort. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and cumulative incidence of relapse (CIR, estimated using competing-risk models) were reported. Prognostic factors were identified in a 6-month landmark multivariate analysis. Outcomes after thiotepa autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy (CAR-T) delivered at relapse were compared after propensity score matching (PSM). A total of 1139 patients were included in the analysis (de novo: 537; relapsed SCNSL: 602). Two-year PFS estimates were 40.4%, 43.9%, and 16.2% for de novo SCNSL, CNS-isolated relapse, and synchronous relapse, respectively. Patients with CNS-isolated relapse demonstrated low rates of systemic recurrence (24-month CIR, 6%). Thiotepa-ASCT correlated with longer survival in de novo SCNSL (PFS: hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; P = .005; and OS: HR, 0.62; P = .023) and CNS-isolated relapses (PFS: HR, 0.55; P = .002; and OS: HR, 0.39; P< .0001). ASCT (thiotepa or no thiotepa) also associated with improved survival in synchronous relapses (PFS: HR, 0.57; P = .023; and OS: HR, 0.48; P = .019). Higher survival with thiotepa-ASCT than CAR-T was observed after PSM (PFS: HR, 0.45; P = .005 and OS: HR, 0.41; P = .014). These data support thiotepa-ASCT in eligible patients, particularly de novo disease and CNS-isolated relapses. CNS-isolated relapse was infrequently associated with systemic recurrence, supporting treatment regimens adopted from primary CNS lymphoma.

Abstract The benefit of rituximab maintenance after first-line (1L) bendamustine-rituximab (BR) in patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) remains uncertain, with inconsistent results from the phase 2 MAINTAIN trial and several retrospective studies. We conducted a large retrospective study at 27 US and Canadian academic centers to examine the benefit of rituximab maintenance after BR. A total of 911 patients received 1L BR between 2010 and 2020, and 703 had an objective response and no evidence of disease progression at the 3-month post-BR landmark. Among those, 394 (56%) received rituximab maintenance and 309 (44%) did not, with largely similar baseline patient and disease characteristics. In the landmark analysis, rituximab maintenance was associated with improved event-free survival (EFS; median, 49.9 vs 29.7 months; P< .001) as well as overall survival (OS; median, 109.5 vs 74.2 months; P< .001). The EFS and OS benefits were observed across most of the subgroups. EFS and OS differences were statistically significant in those who achieved a complete response to 1L BR (n = 590; median EFS, 62.7 vs 31.1 months [P< .001]; median OS, 136.1 vs 75.3 months [P< .001]), but the analysis among those who achieved a partial response to 1L BR was limited by the small sample size. These results provide additional evidence for the survival benefit of rituximab maintenance after BR in MCL and support its use in clinical trial design and routine practice.

Abstract Introduction: cBTKi have made a substantial impact in pts w/ MCL, but pts who develop PD while on treatment w/ cBTKi have historically had poor responses to subsequent lines of therapy (LOT). Brexucel, lisocel, and the non-covalent BTKi pirto have been approved in this population. While two RW studies have substantiated the benefit of brexucel, similar data for pirto are lacking. Accordingly, we aimed to evaluate the outcomes of pts treated w/ pirto in the RW setting. Methods: We performed a multi-center retrospective cohort study of adult pts w/ a diagnosis of MCL who experienced PD after any approved cBTKi and subsequently received pirto. Pts who received pirto w/ bridging intent and those who switched to pirto due to intolerance of cBTKi were excluded. The 95% exact binomial confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for overall response rate (ORR) and complete response rate (CRR). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were defined as the time from pirto start to PD or death, whichever occurred first, and the time from pirto start to death, respectively, and calculated w/ the Kaplan-Meier method. The log-rank test was used to compare survival curves. A multivariate (MV) Cox proportional hazard model was built to calculate adjusted hazard ratio (aHR). Analyses were performed w/ SAS, version 9.4. Results: Data on 111 pts w/ MCL treated across 21 institutions were collected. Median (mdn) age was 72 (range 33 – 93) years. Twenty-seven pts (24%) were female, 3 (3%) were Asian, 5 (5%) Black, 9 (8%) Hispanic, 86 (77%) White. Among the 53 (48%) pts w/ available MIPI-c at diagnosis, 28 (53%) pts were high-risk. Ki67 at diagnosis was available in 84 (76%) pts: of those, 58 (69%) had a Ki67 ≥30%, and 41 (49%) ≥50%. TP53 mutational status was available in 70 (63%) pts: 33 (47%) had documented TP53 mutation and 10/52 (19%) pts had a disease w/ complex karyotype. Pts had a mdn of 3 (range 1 – 9) prior LOT (n=106). Ninety-one pts (86%) received chemo-immunotherapy (CIT), 16 (15%) autologous stem cell transplant, 19 (18%) venetoclax (ven), 29 (27%) chimeric antigen receptor T-cell, 4 (4%) allogeneic stem cell transplant. For cBTKi, 39 (35%) pts received ibrutinib, 56 (50%) pts acalabrutinib, 33 (30%) pts zanubrutinib, and 17 (15%) pts received more than one cBTKi. The mdn time from the last dose of cBTKi to pirto start was 55 (range 0 – 2587) days, w/ 51 (46%) pts who switched from a cBTKi directly to pirto. Thirty (27%) pts had no response (stable disease or PD as best response) to cBTKi, and 40 (36%) pts had no response to the last LOT. Two (2%) pts received pirto in combination w/ CIT, 8 (7%) w/ an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody (mAb), 11 (10%) w/ ven ± a mAb, while 86 (77%) pts as single agent. In 104 (94%) pts, pirto was given at full dose, 10 (9%) pts had a subsequent dose reduction. A total of 35 serious (grade ≥3) adverse events (AE) were documented in 27 (24%) pts: 4 (4%) pts had a serious bleeding AE, 5 (5%) pts a serious cardiac AE, 10 (9%) a serious GI AE, and 16 (14%) a serious infectious AE. Ninety-eight (88%) pts were evaluable for response. The ORR was 40% (95% CI 30% – 50%) w/ a CRR of 29% (95% CI 20%– 39%). At the last follow-up, 29 (26%) pts remained on pirto w/ a mdn treatment duration of 15.1 months (range 0.4 – 26). Fifty-eight (52%) pts died, 35 (78%) because of PD. At a mdn follow-up of 15.8 (range 0.4 – 26) months among survivors, the mdn PFS was 4.7 months (95% CI 3.3 – 8.2) and the mdn OS was 13 months (95% CI 9.2 – not available). Using the log-rank test, age (quartile groups), number of LOT (1-2 vs. 3-4 vs. 5+), time from cBTKi to pirto (quartile groups), Ki67≥30%, and high MIPI-C did not result in a statistically significant difference in PFS (p>0.05). Presence of TP53 mutation was associated w/ a non-statistically significant adverse trend in PFS (p=0.0585). No response to cBTKi and Ki67≥50% were associated w/ a statistically significant inferior PFS in log-rank test (p=<0.05), which persisted in a MV Cox regression model (aHR 2.4, 95% CI 1.4-4.2, and aHR 2.6, 95% CI 1.6-4.4, respectively). Conclusions: This is the first RW report on pirto in MCL pts. In this high-risk population, ORR to pirto was comparable to the BRUIN trial, while PFS was significantly worse, especially in pts w/ no response to cBTKi and w/ a high Ki67. However, prolonged remissions were seen in a subset of pts, suggesting that a better characterization of this population w/ durable benefit from pirto is needed.

Abstract Introduction: CD20xCD3 bispecific antibodies (BsAb) have been approved for use in relapsed/refractory (RR) large B-Cell lymphomas (LBCLs) with manageable toxicities. The main adverse events of clinical interest are cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS). The risk factors for CRS and ICANS are not well understood. Knowledge of variables that contribute to increased risk may help clinicians identify and tailor management for high-risk patients (pts) and increase the comfort level for providers using these therapies in community practices. Methods: We performed a multicenter retrospective study at 21 US centers evaluating pts with RR LBCLs receiving commercially available epcoritamab (epco) or glofitamab (glofit) between 2023 and 2025. We obtained baseline characteristics, safety and efficacy outcomes. Univariate analysis was performed to identify associations between CRS, ICANS, and clinical variables of interest. Results: As of May 31, 2025, a total of 312 pts with RR LBCLs were treated with BsAb, Epco n=193 (62%), Glofit n= 119 (38%); median age 68; 63% male; 70% ECOG PS 0-1. Most common histologic type was diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, not otherwise specified (DLBCL, NOS) (n=239, 84%) followed by high-grade B-cell lymphoma (HGBL) (n=46, 16%). 179 pts (57%) were previously treated with chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, with 47% receiving CAR-T <6 months (mo) prior to BsAb. Among pts with prior CAR-T, CRS with CAR-T therapy of any grade occurred in 63%, with 26% ≥ grade 2. ICANS of any grade (G) occurred in 25% of pts (9.4% ≥ G3). Overall and complete response (ORR and CR) rates to BsAb were 51% and 29%, respectively. With a median follow up of 5 mo, median progression-free and overall survival (PFS and OS) were 2.3 and 7.3 mo, respectively. With BsAb treatment, CRS of any grade occurred in 117 (39%) patients: 24% G1, 8.7% G2, 4% G3, 1% G4 and 1% G5. The max grade CRS occurred most frequently after the third dose of epco (35%) and the first dose of glofit (23%). CRS was managed with additional steroids in 24% of pts and tocilizumab in 22%. 13% of pts experienced ICANS: 5.8% G1, 3.4% G2, 2% G3, 1% G4 and 0.3% G5. Factors that increased the risk for any grade CRS included: bulky disease ≥ 7.5 cm at time of BsAb treatment (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.17 – 3.55, p = 0.012), elevated LDH (OR 2.56, 95% CI 1.45– 4.76, p = 0.002) and treatment with epco compared to glofit (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.04- 2.77, p = 0.036). As G ≥2 CRS generally requires inpatient monitoring and management, we next compared the risk factors between pts with no CRS or G1 CRS and G ≥2 CRS. Factors associated with increased risk for high grade CRS included: bone marrow involvement by lymphoma (OR 3.47, 95% CI 0.97 – 11.3, p = 0.043), platelet count ≤ 75 (OR 2.46, 95% CI 1.21 – 4.87, p = 0.011), ≥ 2 extra nodal sites (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.07 – 3.97, p = 0.032) and ≥G2 CRS with prior CAR-T (OR 3.35, 95% CI 1.13 – 9.97, p = 0.027). Factors that increased the risk for ICANS included: bulky disease (OR 2.67, 95% CI 1.28 – 5.49, p = 0.008), elevated Cr ≥ 1.5x ULN (OR 3.79, 95% CI 1.25 – 10.4, p = 0.012), elevated AST/ALT ≥ 3x ULN (OR 4.65, 95% CI 0.92 – 19.9, p = 0.042), low albumin (OR 2.85, 95% CI 1.49 - 5.5, p = 0.002), and co-occurrence of CRS with BsAb (OR 9.1, 95% CI 3.85- 25, p < 0.001). No other clinical variables including older age, histologic subtype, ECOG PS, B symptoms, IPI score, cell of origin or histologic subtype, baseline labs such as ALC, CRP, fibrinogen or D-dimer were significantly associated with CRS or ICANS risk. There was no difference in ORR or CR rates in patients who experienced CRS or ICANS. Conclusions: Our analysis of pts treated with commercial BsAb for LBCL shows an increased risk for CRS and ICANs based on clinical variables that are routinely obtained at baseline including tumor bulk, sites of disease, laboratory parameters, and history of prior CRS with CAR-T therapy. Differences in baseline populations receiving epco and glofit treatments in this real-world analysis have been previously reported (Brooks et al, Blood 2025) and the comparative risk for CRS between these treatments remains unclear. Future plans including multivariable analysis may allow for development of a predictive model to identify pts at high risk of CRS and ICANS with BsAb treatment, potentially leading to prospective clinical trials evaluating prophylactic interventions for high-risk pts.

Abstract Introduction: Epcoritamab (epco) and glofitamab (glofit) are bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) approved for the treatment of patients (pts) with multiply relapsed or refractory (r/r) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). Though response rates are relatively high, most patients (pts) eventually experience progression of disease (POD). We sought to investigate the treatment patterns and clinical outcomes following POD post-BsAb for r/r LBCL Pts, as this has not previously been described. Methods: We performed a multicenter retrospective study including 21 US centers evaluating pts with r/r LBCL receiving commercially available epco or glofit between 2023 and 2025. Baseline characteristics and outcomes were extracted from medical records. Efficacy and survival outcomes were assessed by site investigators and 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. Results: As of May 15, 2025, a total of 312 pts with r/r LBCLs were treated with BsAb, of whom a total of 168 (53.8%) pts experienced POD [104 of 193 (53.8%) treated with prior epco and 64 of 119 (53.8%) treated with prior glofit]. Pts with POD had a median age at BsAb start of 67 years (interquartile range [IQR] 58-76), most were male (68.4%), and the most common histology was diffuse large B-cell lymphoma not otherwise specified (n=122 [71.8%]). Sixty-seven of 168 pts (39.9%) with POD after BsAb had experienced primary refractory disease defined as failure to achieve PR or CR to frontline therapy. A total of 102 (60.7%) pts with POD to BsAb had received chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy prior to BsAbs, with 33.3% of these pts being refractory to CAR T and 30.4% progressing within 6 months of CAR T-cell infusion. The median time to progression following BsAb start was 48 days. Following POD, 70 pts received no further anti-lymphoma therapy. Among 98 pts receiving subsequent therapy, 85 initially received systemic therapy and 13 initially received local therapy with radiation (concurrently with systemic therapy in 8 pts). The most commonly-used next line of systemic therapies included: loncastuximab tesirine in 19 pts (ORR 16.7%, all PR); commercial CAR T in 11 pts (ORR 50% [CR 36.4%, PR 18.2%); tafasitamab with lenalidomide in 7 (no responses); and other chemotherapy in 46 pts (ORR 27.6% [CR 24.1%]). The median follow-up time from POD was 9.2 months among survivors (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.8-13.3). Among those who initiated subsequent-line therapy following BsAbs, the median progression-free survival (PFS2) was 1.9 months (95% CI 1.5-2.4) and median overall survival (OS) from initiation of subsequent-line therapy was 3.9 months (95% CI 2.4-5.5). The estimated 1-year OS following initiation of next therapy was 12%. Conclusions: We report the outcomes of largest cohort of pts with POD post-BsAbs in r/r LBCL. Progression events occurred early after initiation of single agent BsAbs, and almost half of pts who progressed did not receive subsequent therapy. For those who received standard subsequent-line therapy after POD, response rates and survival outcomes were poor. Pts with POD after BsAB should be strongly considered for clinical trials of novel therapeutics or combination therapies.

Abstract Background: Venetoclax (VEN)+obinutuzumab (VO) is an effective therapy for CLL/SLL requiring regular monitoring for tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) during VEN ramp-up. The CLL14 trial of VO reported no TLS during VEN ramp-up; however, there are limited real-world data on monitoring practices and TLS outcomes for different dose levels and monitoring timepoints. This study assessed VEN initiation prophylaxis and monitoring outcomes for patients (pts) with CLL/SLL starting VO in first line (1L) in an outpatient, real-world setting. Methods This interim analysis relied onretrospective observational data from 4 US sites of the CLL Collaborative Study of Real-World Evidence (CORE). Adult pts with CLL/SLL were eligible if they: (1) started VO per-label outside of a clinical trial in 1L, or immediately after exposure in 1L to agents with different mechanisms of action (i.e., BTKi, anti-CD20 only) of <30 days; (2) prior to VEN start, had either (i) low physician-determined tumor burden (TB) (i.e., all lymph nodes [LN] <5 cm and ALC <25 x 109/L), or (ii) medium physician-determined TB (i.e., any LN ≥5-<10 cm or ALC ≥25 x 109/L) with creatinine clearance ≥80 mL/min; (3) had no strong CYP3A inhibitors or prophylactic rasburicase from 3 days prior to VEN start until end of VEN ramp-up; and (4) had VEN ramp-up in an outpatient setting. TB-related labs/imaging was assessed from 2 months prior to obinutuzumab initiation (i.e., index date) until VEN start. VEN characteristics (i.e., dosing, duration), prophylaxis measures (i.e., antihyperuricemics and IV hydration), and TLS-related monitoring and management (i.e., lab results and interventions received) were collected per ramp-up week and TLS monitoring timepoint. Results Of 128 pts in CORE who initiated VO in any line, 72 pts met inclusion criteria (low TB: 57 [79.2%]; medium TB: 15 [20.8%]). Median (IQR) age was 62 (56.0, 68.5) years, 58.3% were male, and 81.9% had ECOG grade ≤1. Among pts tested, 7/68 (10.3%) had del(17p)/TP53 mutation and 43/66 (65.2%) had unmutated IGHV. Median (IQR) time from index to VEN start was 23.0 (22.0, 30.0) days. Most pts completed ramp-up (98.6% [71/72]) and followed a per-label regular dosing schedule (93.1% [67/72]). Prior to VEN ramp-up, all pts received prophylactic antihyperuricemics (allopurinol: 71 [98.6%]; febuxostat: 2 [2.8%]) and prophylactic hydration. In the 2 days prior to a dose escalation for at least 1 week of ramp-up, prophylactic IV hydration was reported for 27 (37.5%) pts based on physician determination. One pt stopped VEN after week 2 due to neutropenia (grade 3+). During ramp-up (median [IQR] of 9 [8, 12] blood tests per pt), no lab or clinical TLS was reported. Of 21 (29.2%) pts who received an intervention following a lab assessment, most had low TB at VEN start (16 [76.2%]). All interventions were either prophylactic or non-TLS-related. Following a lab assessment for at least 1 week of ramp-up, prophylactic IV or escalated oral hydration intervention was reported in 17/21 pts (81.0%) based on physician determination (e.g., to manage impaired baseline renal function in those with low TB, patient request, or institutional practice) (IV hydration: 15 pts; escalated oral hydration: 2 pts). By per-label monitoring timepoints, hydration intervention was given prophylactically following pre-dose lab tests for 7 pts (across weeks 1-5), 6-8 hours post-dose for 5 pts (weeks 1-2), and 24 hours post-dose for 10 pts (weeks 1-2). By per-label monitoring timepoints, other non-TLS-related interventions (i.e., blood transfusion for anemia, insulin for hyperglycemia, and potassium for non-TLS-related hypokalemia) were given following pre-dose lab tests for 2 pts (weeks 1-5) and 24 hours post-dose for 4 pts (weeks 1-2). Conclusion Consistent with the CLL14 trial, no TLS was reported in this real-world, interim analysis of pts with mostly low TB and good renal function at 1L VO initation. All interventions during VEN ramp-up were prophylactic or non-TLS-related, with prophylactic hydration commonly given based on physician preference. These results suggest that VO initiation is manageable in an outpatient setting. Consideration should be given for simplified monitoring requirements including potential removal of 6-8 hour post-dose lab in this population and be further explored in prospective studies. Data collection for this study is ongoing to further contextualize real-world VEN initiation prophylaxis and monitoring outcomes in a larger cohort.

Abstract Background: In R/R DLBCL/FL, T-cell engager therapy (TCET) using chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy (CART) or bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) are promising options. Patients (pts) with R/R disease post TCET experience dismal outcomes with overall survival (OS)< 5 months (mos). Lonca, an antibody drug conjugate (ADC) targeting CD19 (FDA approved for R/R DLBCL and beneficial in R/R FL) has been increasingly used post-TCET. RWDA of Lonca is limited, especially regarding: 1) impact of CD19 expression on activity, 2) adverse events (AEs) in non-clinical trial setting, and 3) impact of sequencing Lonca and TCET. Thus, we conducted a RWDA of Lonca efficacy and toxicity in R/R DLBCL and FL pre- and post-TCET. Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective study of R/R DLBCL or FL pts ≥18 years who received Lonca from 2017 to 2025 at 10 US academic sites. Demographic, pathological, treatment, and AEs were collected. Efficacy outcomes included overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD). Progression-free survival (PFS) and OS were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier method. CD19 expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and/or flow cytometry (FC) prior to Lonca administration was correlated to outcomes. Results: Among 120 pts (DLBCL n= 101, FL n=19), all but 2 pts received Lonca monotherapy. At a median follow-up of 6.1 mos, median PFS and OS were 2.6 mos and 6.7 mos, respectively for the entire cohort. For DLBCL, median age was 66 years (18-89). Median prior lines of therapy (LOT) were 4 (1-11). ORR was 37.7% (CR: 17%, PR: 20.7%), SD: 6%, and PD: 56%. Median PFS was 2.1 mos, and median OS was 5.8 mos. For FL, median age was 62 years (28-88). Median prior LOT was 6 (2-8). ORR was 49.4% (CR: 28%, PR: 21.4%), SD: 14%, and PD: 35.7%. Median PFS was 6.7 mos, and median OS was 6.8 mos. OS by best response (entire cohort) was 11.3 mos and 11.8 mos in those who had CR and PR, respectively, 10.6 mos in SD and 3.5 mos in those with PD. Lonca LOT (2nd-12th line) was not associated with improved OS (p=0.58). Bulky disease (>7.5 cm) was not associated with worse OS (p=0.07). PD to Lonca was associated with PD at 2nd line treatment (OR: 4.3; 95% CI: 1.7–10.9) and 3rd-line treatment (OR: 4.2; 95% CI: 1.5–11.5), elevated lactate dehydrogenase (OR: 1.9; 95% CI: 1.2–2.9), and each subsequent increase of extranodal sites >1 prior to Lonca (OR: 1.5; 95% CI: 1.04–2.1). Among pts with available CD19 status prior to Lonca administration, 28 were FC-positive and 22 were IHC-positive. Of the CD19 FC-positive pts (n=23), 22% (5/23) achieved CR, 26% (6/23) had PR, 8% (2/23) had SD, and 43% (10/23) developed PD. Of the CD19 IHC-positive pts (n=20): 15% (3/20) achieved CR, 20% (4/20) had PR, 5% (1/20) had SD, and 60% (12/20) developed PD. Among all CD19-negative pts (n=7), two achieved CR, one had SD, and four with PD. Any grade AE was seen in 84% of pts. Any grade ≥3 (G3) AE was seen in 62% of pts. Notable G3 AEs included: anemia (35%), lymphopenia (34%), neutropenia (21.6%), thrombocytopenia (20%), infection (17%), fatigue (9%), peripheral edema (5%), pleural effusion (4%), photosensitivity (2.5%), and pruritus (2.5%). Treatment discontinuation due to AEs occurred in 17% (n=21) of pts. Fifty-five pts (50 DLBCL, 5 FL) received both Lonca and CD19 directed CART (Pre-Lonca n=54; Post-Lonca n=1). There was no significant difference in PFS or OS between pts who received CART and those who did not (PFS: 2.7 mos vs 3 mos; OS: 7.4 mos vs 5 mos). BsAb was used in 41 pts (34 DLBCL, 7 FL) (Pre-Lonca n=30; Post-Lonca n=11). No significant difference in PFS or OS was observed between pts who received BsAb pre- or post-Lonca. There was also no significant difference in PFS between pts who received a BsAb (2.2 mos) and those who did not (2.9 mos), nor in OS.Conclusion: In this large RWDA of Lonca, pts who achieved any form of clinical response experienced a significantly longer OS than previously reported for heavily pre-treated pts. Lonca was predominantly administered after TCET; however, there was no significant difference in efficacy between pts who received CART and BsAbs and those who did not. CD19 positivity and earlier utilization of Lonca did not appear to have an impact on response rates. Our findings support a role for Lonca in the treatment of R/R DLBCL pts not candidates for TCET. This RWDA highlights the need to further investigate the sequencing of Lonca in R/R DLBCL and FL.

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.