Outcomes following disease progression after epcoritamab or glofitamab in the real-world outcomes of bispecific T-cell engagers (REALBiTE) multi-center, retrospective cohort study

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.