Patient-reported time toxicity with bispecific antibody therapies in relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

Résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Several bispecific antibodies (BsAbs), including mosunetuzumab, glofitamab, and epcoritamab, are approved for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). However, real-world patient-centered data evaluating treatment-related time burden and preferences are lacking. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of 120 patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma (FL; N = 60) and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL; N = 60) receiving BsAbs. Participants reported all-cause healthcare visits and time spent on cancer-related healthcare resource utilization over the past 30 days, including travel, treatment administration, recovery, and impact on daily activities. Participants also evaluated two hypothetical treatment profiles to assess preference for fixed-duration versus treat-to-progression therapy. RESULTS: Participants with FL reported a mean of 2.5 healthcare visits in the past 30 days, with significantly fewer visits for mosunetuzumab versus epcoritamab (1.7 vs 3.3, respectively; P < .01). In DLBCL, the mean was 2.6 visits, with fewer visits for glofitamab versus epcoritamab (2.2 vs 3.0; P =.01). Although epcoritamab visits were shorter in FL, more frequent visits and longer recovery time resulted in significantly lower monthly time burden with mosunetuzumab versus epcoritamab (31.2 vs 61.9 hours; P < .05). Similarly, monthly time burden was also lower with glofitamab than epcoritamab in DLBCL (43.0 vs 87.7 hours; P < .05). Most participants reported little to moderate impact on daily activities. Across treatment groups, ≥92% preferred a hypothetical fixed-duration regimen over a treat-to-progression therapy. CONCLUSION: Our real-world data, including novel aspects of time toxicity, demonstrate clinically meaningful differences in time burden associated with BsAbs and emphasize the importance of incorporating patient convenience and preference into shared decision-making in NHL.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.