Abstract Background: Glofit, a CD20/CD3 bispecific antibody, has shown efficacy in prospective trials, including the Phase III STARGLO study evaluating glofit plus gemcitabine/oxaliplatin (GemOx) in transplant-ineligible patients (pts) with R/R large B-cell lymphoma (BCL). However, concerns raised by the FDA's Oncology Drug Advisory Committee regarding the generalizability of the STARGLO data to U.S. pts underscore the need for real-world evidence. We report real-world outcomes of Glofit-GemOx in U.S. pts with R/R aggressive BCL. Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective review across 8 U.S. academic centers, identifying 31 pts with R/R aggressive BCL treated with Glofit-GemOx outside clinical trials. Baseline characteristics, treatment history, and outcomes were abstracted from medical records. Results: At Glofit-GemOx initiation: median age was 72 years (range, 34–88); 90% had stage III/IV disease. Histologic subtypes included DLBCL in 58% (n=18), high-grade BCL in 29% (n=9), PTLD/DLBCL in 6.5% (n=2), follicular lymphoma (FL) grade 3B in 3.2% (n=1), and Burkitt lymphoma (BL) in 3.2% (n=1). Germinal center B-cell phenotype was seen in 80% of evaluable cases. Double- (n=8) or triple-hit (n=1) cytogenetics were observed in 31% (n=9). Elevated LDH was present in 74%, and 16% had B symptoms. Median ECOG performance status was 1 (range, 0–3), and 23% (n=7) had received prior CAR T-cell therapy. Pre-treatment biopsy was performed in 77% (n=24) with CD20 expression tested in 74% (n=23). CD20 expression was negative in 3 pts by flow cytometry and/or immunohistochemistry. Pts received a median 1 prior line of therapy (range, 0-6); Glofit-GemOx was administered as 1L in 7% (n=2), and 2L in 58% (n=18). Median 4 cycles (range, 1-11); both 1L pts had prior FL (1 and 3 prior lines for FL). Twelve pts remain on therapy, 2 on Glofit monotherapy. Four pts were unevaluable (2 death pre-assessment; 2 pending evaluation). Among 27 evaluable pts, ORR was 78% (21/27) and CR rate was 41% (11/27). Among CD20- negative cases on pre- Glofit-GemOx biopsy (n=3), ORR was 33% (1/3), with 1 CR lasting 3.5 months. Of 11 pts who progressed on Glofit-GemOx, 6 were rebiopsied; 1 showed CD20 loss, 1 was previously CD20-negative. Among the 24 pts who received Glofit-GemOx as destination therapy, ORR of 75% (15/20 evaluable). Among pts with prior CAR T (n=7), the ORR and CR rate were both 43% (3/7). None received Glofit-GemOx within 30 days of CAR T-cell infusion; 4 received within 6 mo; 2 of whom achieved CR. Seven pts (24%) received Glofit-GemOx as bridging to CAR T. ORR pre-CAR T was 86% (6/7); 4 pt successfully proceeded to CAR T, 2 are pending infusion, and 1 progressed after 2 cycles and transitioned to alternate therapy. Three pts were evaluable post-CAR T with an ORR of 100% (3/3) and CR rate of 67% (2/3). At data cutoff, 23/31 pts were alive. Full PFS and OS data will be presented at ASH. Notable individual responses included a patient with relapsed BL post–DA-EPOCH-R who received Glofit-GemOx as 2L therapy and achieved a 6 mo CR without consolidation before progression. Another patient treated with Glofit-GemOx in the 7L setting after prior allogeneic transplant achieved a 3 mo CR prior to progression. CRS occurred in 58% (18/31), with grade ≥3 in 13% (4/31), including 2 possible treatment-related deaths. One occurred in a frail patient after the 1st dose, though neutropenic fever was present prior to Glofit administration. The second followed influenza A infection, respiratory failure, and possible grade 4 ICANS after the 2nd dose; attribution to CRS vs. infection was unclear. ICANS occurred in 10% (3/31), with one possible grade ≥3 case. Conclusions: This is the first U.S.-based real-world analysis of Glofit-GemOx, including more U.S. pts than the STARGLO trial, appear to demonstrate comparable response rates, potentially supporting its use as both bridging and destination therapy. Notable toxicities, including CRS, were observed, with 2 possible treatment-related deaths, with plausible alternate non-treatment related causes. Favorable responses were seen in bridging therapy and high-risk subgroups (transformed, HGBCL) which were excluded in the STARGLO trial. These findings support the real-world utility of Glofit-GemOx in the management of R/R aggressive BCL but underscore the need for caution due to associated toxicities. Further real-world and prospective evaluation are warranted, particularly in rare subgroups and as bridging therapy.
Tiger et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: