Treatment selection preferences and barriers in relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma.

207 Background: CAR-T & bispecific antibodies (BsAb) for large B-cell lymphoma offer deep responses, but have unique toxicities requiring close monitoring. Different practice settings have varied strategies for managing these toxicities, leading to increased costs, healthcare resource use, & reduced quality of life. With no direct comparison, rationale for therapy selection may vary. This study explores provider choices, sequencing strategies & access barriers. Methods: A survey of US-based Hematologists was conducted on practice demographics, therapy availability, preferences, & barriers in LBCL. Responses were analyzed across clinical scenarios. Results: Responses were received from 45 physicians. Availability of CAR-T & BsAb varied with 75% prescribing both, & only BsAb being available at 9% of providers’ centers. There was a strong preference for CAR-T over BsAb—higher among academic vs. nonacademic providers (96% vs. 78%; p = 0.03) & at CAR-T vs. non-CAR-T centers (100% vs. 72%; p = 0.001). Even at BsAb-only centers, preference leaned toward CAR-T, though notably lower compared to CAR-T centers. Among centers without either, 86% preferred CAR-T. Practice volume had no impact. Reasons for favoring CAR-T included perceived better outcomes (55%), shorter treatment (26%), center choice (19%), more experience (48%), & curative potential (21%). BsAb selection was driven by CAR-T unavailability & logistical barriers (distance to specialized center, insurance delays, referral complexity, manufacturing time, & hospitalization needs). Axi-cel was preferred by 69% ( p = 0.0001) vs. other CAR-T for third-line or later due to experience with use, response rates, center choice, & logistical ease. Liso-cel (26%) & Tisa-cel (2%) were chosen for perceived favorable toxicity over Axi-cel. Axi-cel was also preferred second-line vs. Liso-cel (73% vs. 24%; p < 0.0001) for similar reasons. Among BsAb, Epcoritamab was favored by 56% for administration ease (subcutaneous), experience, & center preference; Glofitamab by 42% for shorter duration, experience, & center preference. There was no difference by academic vs nonacademic practice & volume for both CAR-T & BsAb. In patients with prior non-CAR-T anti-CD19 therapy, providers chose CD19 CAR-T over CD20 BsAb (80% vs. 18%; p < 0.0001). For relapse after second-line CAR-T, 78% providers preferred BsAb as the next line over other options ( p < 0.0001) due to more favorable response rates, toxicity profile, & experience with use. Providers prioritized response rates, survival, & toxicity profile in their treatment decisions. Logistics, duration, frequency, & cost were less important. There were no differences based on practice setting & CAR-T experience. Conclusions: Despite higher preference for CAR-T due to perceived superior outcomes, access barriers exist. Efforts to streamline referral pathways, logistics, & expand availability are crucial to improve outcomes.