Real-world outcomes with bispecific antibody therapies for aggressive B-cell lymphomas in octogenarians
Abstract
Abstract Background: Bispecific Antibody (BsAb) therapy has improved outcomes in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma (R/R LBCL). In pivotal trials, BsAbs demonstrated lower rates of serious adverse events compared to historical trials with CAR T-cell therapy, making it an appealing option in older adults. However, pts who are 80 years (yrs) or older (≥80) were underrepresented in these landmark trials. Hence, we sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy outcomes of BsAbs in pts age ≥80 yrs with R/R LBCL. Methods This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study of adult LBCL pts treated with BsAb between 2018-2024 across 14 academic institutions. Pts were stratified by age (< 80 vs ≥80) at time of first dose of BsAb. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with secondary endpoints of lymphoma-specific survival (LSS), rates of response, cytokine release syndrome (CRS), neurotoxicity (NT), and infection. Cohort characteristics and safety outcomes were compared using descriptive statistics. Time-to-event curves were estimated by Kaplan-Meier method. Cox univariable and multivariable regression analysis (MVA) were used to determine factors that were prognostic of survival. Results In the cohort of 258 pts, 20% (n=51) were in the age ≥80 yrs (older) cohort with a median age of 85 yrs (range: 80-101) and 80% (n=207) were in the age <80 yrs (younger) cohort with a median age of 62 yrs (24-79). Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups except the older cohort had more patients with ECOG 2-4 (36.1% vs 12.3%, p=0.002), a higher median IPI (4 vs. 2), ≤2 lines of therapy (LOT, 47.1% vs. 29.8%, p=0.03), and fewer pts with prior CAR T-cell therapy (17.6% vs 58.0%, p<0.001). While the proportion of pts receiving glofitamab was similar between the older and younger cohorts (45.1% vs 43.6%), a slightly higher proportion of the older cohort received mosunetuzumab (39.2% vs 27.7%) and a lower proportion received epcoritamab (15.7% vs 25.2%) (p=0.2). Altogether, 88 pts received BsAb as part of a clinical trial, and 72 received BsAb in combination with chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or radiation. Among the response evaluable pts (n=205), the older cohort had a numerically lower complete response rate (CRR) (35% vs. 41.2%, p=0.6) and overall response rate (ORR) (57.5% vs. 60.6%, p=0.7) than the younger cohort. With a median follow-up of 9.7 vs 17.0 mos for the older and younger cohorts, the median PFS was not significantly different between the two cohorts (3.4 months [mos] [95% CI: 2.6- 6.4 mos]) vs 4.7 mos [95% CI: 3.4- 6], p=0.22), respectively. With a median follow-up of 12.0 and 18.0 mos, the median OS was numerically shorter for the older cohort (6.5 mos [95% CI: 5.0 - NE]) compared to the younger cohort (13.5 mos [95% CI: 10.4- 25.7]) but did not reach statistical significance (p=0.11). LSS was not statistically different between groups (p=0.45). In the MVA, age was not prognostic for PFS or OS. After controlling for receipt of BsAb in a clinical trial or as a combination therapy, among other covariates, no factors were prognostic of PFS nor OS between older and younger cohorts. CRS rates were numerically higher in the younger cohort (44% vs 39%, p=0.6), but grade ≥3 CRS was more common in the older cohort (25% vs. 12%, p=0.2). The older cohort received more steroids (p=0.6), tocilizumab (p=1.0), and siltuximab (p=0.2) for CRS management. More older pts experienced NT (18% vs. 11%, p=0.3) but had less grade ≥3 NT (17% vs. 23%, p=1.0) despite the younger cohort receiving steroids more frequently for NT management (p=1.0). Rates of infection were similar at 1 (14% vs. 14%, p=1.0) and 6 mos (23% vs. 27%, p=0.8) after start of BsAb. The rate of BsAb discontinuation was higher in the older cohort (62.7% vs. 57.6%, p=0.3), despite both cohorts receiving a median of 4 cycles. Conclusions In pts aged ≥80 years with R/R LBCL treated with BsAb, PFS and LSS were comparable to younger pts. Although OS was numerically shorter in the older cohort, this was not statistically significant, likely due to short follow-up. No factors, including age, were prognostic of PFS or OS. Safety outcomes, including CRS, NT, and infection rates, were similar across age groups, except for a higher incidence of grade ≥3 CRS in the older cohort. Thus, BsAb therapy should be considered for those age ≥80. Longer follow-up and larger pt numbers are needed to confirm these findings.
Article Details
Authors (30)
Lindsey Fitzgerald
11Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, United States
Elena Nazarenko
2University of Utah, Division of Epidemiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Salt Lake City, United States
Yizhe Xu
2University of Utah, Division of Epidemiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Salt Lake City, United States
Natalie Grover
11Division of Hematology, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC
Colin Thomas
3Abramson Cancer Center, Hematology, Philadelphia, United States
Yun Kyoung Tiger
6Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, United States
Ari Pelcovits
1Brown University, Providence, United States
Matthew Cortese
8Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, United States
James Davis
Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC
Adam Kidwell
7MCW Cancer Center, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, United States
Tamara Moyo
10Levine Cancer Institute, Atrium Health, Charlotte, United States
Kyle Miyazaki
11Northwestern University, Chicago, United States
Jonathon Cohen
15Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta CA
Megan Melody
1Tampa General Hospital Cancer Institute, Tampa, United States
Daniel Kerr
1Tampa General Hospital Cancer Institute, Tampa, United States
Vaishalee Kenkre
16Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, United States
Thomas Ollila
2Rhode Island Hospital, Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Medicine, Providence, United States
Megan Herr
15Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, United States
Salmaan Mubeen
4Rutgers Cancer Institute of New jersey, Division of Blood Disorders, Section of Hematologic Malignancies, New Brunswick, United States
Geoffrey Shouse
3Department of Hematology and Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation, City of Hope, Duarte, United States
Daniel Antonio
16Robert H Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, United States
Deborah Stephens
1University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Hematology, Chapel Hill, United States
Nirav Shah
7MCW Cancer Center, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, United States
Jonathan Moreira
16Robert H Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, United States
Shuo Ma
Jane Winter
16Robert H Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, United States
Leo Gordon
1Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Medicine (Hematology Oncology), Chicago, United States
Brian Hess
7Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Hollings Cancer Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC
Reem Karmali
2Robert H Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medicine, Chicago, United States
Narendranath Epperla
University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States