Early toxicity, healthcare utilization, and survival after CAR T-cell therapy versus bispecific antibodies in DLBCL: A propensity-matched real-world analysis.

J Jatin Thukral (Landmark Medical Center, Woonsocket, Cumberland, Rhode Island, United States) K Kanishka Uttam Chandani (4Mayo Clinic, Hematology-Oncology, Phoenix, United States) A Ansy Patel (2SUNY Upstate University, Department of Internal Medicine, Syracuse, United States) R Riya Kaushal Shah (Landmark Medical Center, Woonsocket, RI) S Sooraj Srirangadhamu Gopu (1New York Medical College/Landmark Medical Center, Hematology-Oncology, Woonsocket, United States) V Vida Tajiknia (1New York Medical College/Landmark Medical Center, Hematology-Oncology, Woonsocket, United States) N Nikhil Thukral (Pt. Deendayal Upadhyaya National Institute For Persons with Physical Disabilities, Oakland, California, United States) D Diana Zamora (Mayo Clinic Hospital, Phoenix, AZ) S Sarah Elizabeth Monick (Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ) A Ahmed Nadeem (1New York Medical College/Landmark Medical Center, Hematology-Oncology, Woonsocket, United States) T Talal Hilal (13Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ) V Vishnu Yanamaladoddi (Creighton University School of Medicine-Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ)

Abstract

7041 Background: CD20×CD3 bispecific antibodies and CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapies are increasingly used in relapsed/refractory DLBCL. CAR T therapy is associated with higher rates of CRS,ICANS, and cytopenias, whereas bispecific antibodies are often perceived as less toxic and more outpatient-friendly. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the TriNetX Global Collaborative Network. Adult patients with DLBCL treated with bispecific antibodies (glofitamab, epcoritamab) were compared with those receiving commercial CAR T-cell therapy (tisa, liso, axi). Propensity score matching was performed on demographics, comorbidities, baseline laboratory values, and corticosteroid exposure, yielding 468 patients per cohort. Outcomes included CRS, ICANS, severe neutropenia (ANC <500/µL), and thrombocytopenia (platelets <50×10³/µL), as well as hospitalization and ICU admission at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Overall survival (OS) was assessed using Kaplan–Meier analysis with log-rank testing. Results: After matching, CAR T therapy was associated with significantly higher immune-mediated toxicity. CRS occurred more frequently with CAR T at 1 month (37.4% vs 22.4%), 3 months (39.3% vs 27.6%), 6 months (40.6% vs 28.8%), and 12 months (41.2% vs 29.7%) (all p<0.001). ICANS was also more common with CAR T across all timepoints (1 month: 10.5% vs 4.9%; 12 months: 12.6% vs 7.5%). Severe neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were markedly more frequent in the CAR T cohort, with neutropenia affecting 66.7% vs 12.8% at 1 month and 71.6% vs 32.7% at 12 months (all p<0.001). Despite higher toxicity, healthcare utilization was comparable. Hospitalization rates were similar between groups at 1 and 3 months (61.8% vs 66.7% and 67.1% vs 75.9%), and ICU admission rates did not differ meaningfully at any timepoint. Importantly, overall survival consistently favored CAR T therapy. Survival differences emerged early and persisted over time, with lower mortality in the CAR T cohort at 1 month (2.1% vs 9.0%), 3 months (7.7% vs 18.6%), 6 months (15.8% vs 26.7%), and 12 months (26.5% vs 35.3%), corresponding to significantly improved OS by log-rank testing at all timepoints (p<0.001). Conclusions: In this large, real-world, propensity-matched analysis of relapsed/refractory DLBCL, CAR T-cell therapy was associated with substantially higher rates of CRS, ICANS, and severe cytopenias compared with bispecific antibodies. However, these toxicities did not translate into higher hospitalization or ICU utilization. Despite a less favorable early toxicity profile, CAR T therapy conferred a consistent and clinically meaningful survival advantage from early to late follow-up. Early toxicity alone should not preclude CAR T referral in appropriate candidates, underscoring the need for optimized patient selection, sequencing strategies, and supportive care.

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 44, Issue 16_suppl
Published June 01, 2026
Pages 7041-7041
ISSN 0732-183X
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0732-183X Health Sciences

Authors (12)

J

Jatin Thukral

Landmark Medical Center, Woonsocket, Cumberland, Rhode Island, United States

K

Kanishka Uttam Chandani

4Mayo Clinic, Hematology-Oncology, Phoenix, United States

A

Ansy Patel

2SUNY Upstate University, Department of Internal Medicine, Syracuse, United States

R

Riya Kaushal Shah

Landmark Medical Center, Woonsocket, RI

S

Sooraj Srirangadhamu Gopu

1New York Medical College/Landmark Medical Center, Hematology-Oncology, Woonsocket, United States

V

Vida Tajiknia

1New York Medical College/Landmark Medical Center, Hematology-Oncology, Woonsocket, United States

N

Nikhil Thukral

Pt. Deendayal Upadhyaya National Institute For Persons with Physical Disabilities, Oakland, California, United States

D

Diana Zamora

Mayo Clinic Hospital, Phoenix, AZ

S

Sarah Elizabeth Monick

Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ

A

Ahmed Nadeem

1New York Medical College/Landmark Medical Center, Hematology-Oncology, Woonsocket, United States

T

Talal Hilal

13Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ

V

Vishnu Yanamaladoddi

Creighton University School of Medicine-Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ