Second line immune targeted therapies in relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: A network meta-analysis.

person Aneesha Fathima Syed Mohamed MCPHS University, Boston, MA info_outline Aneesha Fathima Syed Mohamed, Renuka Kandikatla, Vinod Kumar Yakkala, Loriel Solodokin, Joanne Doucette, Ismaeel Yunusa, Tewodros Eguale

Authors person Aneesha Fathima Syed Mohamed MCPHS University, Boston, MA info_outline Aneesha Fathima Syed Mohamed, Renuka Kandikatla, Vinod Kumar Yakkala, Loriel Solodokin, Joanne Doucette, Ismaeel Yunusa, Tewodros Eguale Organizations MCPHS University, Boston, MA, University of South Carolina College of Pharmacy, Columbia, SC Abstract Disclosures Research Funding No funding sources reported Background: Relapsed or refractory (R/R) Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) patients undergo multiple lines of burdensome therapies. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) of phase 3 randomized control trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effectiveness of second-line (2L) immune targeted treatments (ITTs), including chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell therapies in R/R DLBCL patients, focusing on overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and complete response (CR). Methods: In a systematic review, we searched RCTs from PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library spanning January 2016 to September 2023.We included studies reporting on adults (≥18 years) DLBCL patients experiencing R/R to first-line anti-CD20 antibody and anthracycline-containing regimen. RCTs comparing ITTs with SOC (2L salvage chemoimmunotherapy regimens followed by stem cell transplantation) were included. Frequentist fixed-effect model was utilized to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for survival outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for binary outcomes (ORR and CR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We ranked treatment effectiveness based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA). Results: Our search identified 539 records; four RCTs contributed to the NMA: three comparing CAR-Ts, axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel), lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel), tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) with SOC, and one comparing ofatumumab + cisplatin, cytarabine, dexamethasone (O-DHAP) with SOC. Axi-cel significantly improved OS compared to both tisa-cel (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.36-0.96) and SOC (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.55-0.98). For EFS, axi-cel (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.27-0.53) and liso-cel (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.21-0.51) showed significant improvement compared to ODHAP. Axi-cel and liso-cel improved EFS significantly when individually compared to tisa-cel, and SOC.Axi-cel (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.39-0.67) and liso-cel (HR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.26-0.61) improved PFS significantly when compared to SOC. Axi-cel and liso-cel also significantly improved PFS when individually compared to ODHAP. In terms of ORR, Axi-cel (OR, 5.93; 95% CI, 3.63- 9.68) and Liso-cel (OR, 6.96; 95% CI, 3.37- 14.37) produced significantly higher ORR compared to SOC. Axi-cel and liso-cel had higher CR significantly when individually compared to ODHAP, tisa-cel, and SOC.In the SUCRA rankings, axi-cel was the most effective for OS, liso-cel ranked the most effective for EFS and PFS. Conclusions: Axi-cel was consistently associated with improved OS and EFS when compared to tisa-cel and SOC while liso-cel improved EFS and PFS over ODHAP and SOC. ORR and CR were higher for axi-cel and liso-cel over tisa-cel, ODHAP and SOC. Results are constrained by lack of multiple studies for each treatment comparison.