PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 29, 2026Journal of Clinical Oncology0 citations

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

View Full Paper
JTJatin ThukralKCKanishka Uttam ChandaniAPAnsy Patel

Key Points

  • This analysis investigates the early toxicity and survival outcomes of CAR T-cell therapy versus bispecific antibodies in DLBCL patients.
  • Conducted a retrospective cohort study using TriNetX Global Collaborative Network.
  • Propensity score matching was performed on 936 patients (468 per cohort) based on demographics, comorbidities, and laboratory values.
  • Outcomes assessed include CRS, ICANS, severe neutropenia, hospitalization, ICU admission, and overall survival.
  • CAR T therapy demonstrated higher rates of CRS (41.2% vs 29.7% at 12 months, p<0.001) and ICANS (12.6% vs 7.5% at 12 months).
  • Severe neutropenia affected 71.6% of CAR T patients at 12 months compared to 32.7% for bispecific antibodies (p<0.001).
  • Overall survival favored CAR T therapy consistently across all time points (26.5% vs 35.3% mortality at 12 months, p<0.001).

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.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Thukral et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a192cf8fab5b468c4415ceehttps://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2026.44.16_suppl.7041
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Real-world comparative outcomes of CAR-T cell therapy versus bispecific antibodies in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma2025
  2. 2Real-world comparison of CAR T-cell therapy versus bispecific antibodies in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma2025 · 1 citations
  3. 3Comparative toxicity profile of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy versus bispecific T-cell engagers in multiple myeloma and B-cell lymphomas: A propensity-matched real-world analysis.2026
  4. 4Real-world toxicity of bispecific antibodies versus CAR-T cell therapy in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and follicular lymphoma.2026
  5. 5Burden and outcomes of CAR T-cell therapy toxicities in DLBCL, multiple myeloma, and B-ALL: A nationwide analysis2025