Glofitamab plus gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (GemOx) vs rituximab (R)-GemOx in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL): Efficacy and safety in patient subgroups

Abstract Background Glofitamab, a CD20xCD3 bispecific antibody, plus GemOx (Glofit-GemOx) has shown overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and complete response (CR) rate benefits compared with R-GemOx, in patients (pts) with autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT)-ineligible R/R DLBCL in the Phase III STARGLO trial (NCT04408638; Abramson et al. Lancet 2024). We present efficacy and safety in clinically relevant subgroups from STARGLO. Methods:Pts were randomized 2:1 to Glofit-GemOx (8 cycles plus 4 cycles of glofitamab monotherapy) or R-GemOx (8 cycles). Glofitamab was given in Cycle (C)1 as weekly step-up doses (2.5/10mg), with the 30mg target dose every 21 days from C2 Day 1. Pts with one prior line of therapy (LOT; second-line [2L]) needed to be ASCT-ineligible. Endpoints included OS, PFS, and CR rate. Results:At the data cut-off (May 1, 2025), 183 pts were enrolled to Glofit-GemOx and 91 to R-GemOx; 101 pts were aged <65 years (y; n=67 and n=34), 173 were aged ≥65y (n=116 and n=57), and 66 were aged ≥75y (n=46 and n=20), respectively. Overall, 172 (62.8%) pts had one prior LOT (n=115, Glofit-GemOx; n=57, R-GemOx) and 102 (37.2%) had ≥2 prior LOT (third-line+ [3L+]; n=68, Glofit-GemOx; n=34, R-GemOx). Among 2L pts, early relapse (≤12 months [mos] after treatment) occurred in 120 pts (n=84, Glofit-GemOx; n=36, R-GemOx) and late relapse (>12 mos after treatment) in 52 pts (n=31, Glofit-GemOx; n=21, R-GemOx). At the data cut-off, overall median OS follow-up was 35.1 mos (95% CI: 33.6–37.6). In pts aged <65y, median (95% CI) OS was 27.0 (13.7– not estimable [NE]) vs 9.0 (5.5–34.4) mos and PFS was 9.6 (5.8–NE) vs 5.2 (1.5–5.6) mos; CR rate (95% CI) was 58.2% (45.5–70.2) vs 26.5% (12.9–44.4) with Glofit-GemOx vs R-GemOx, respectively. In pts aged ≥65y, median (95% CI) OS was 25.0 (12.9–NE) vs 13.8 (7.6–18.5) mos and PFS was 15.8 (8.7–28.8) vs 3.0 (2.1–9.7) mos; CR rate (95% CI) was 58.6% (49.1–67.7) vs 24.6% (14.1–37.8) with Glofit-GemOx vs R-GemOx, respectively. In pts aged ≥75y, median (95% CI) OS was 33.0 (20.4–NE) vs 8.3 (3.8–15.7) mos and PFS was NE (17.0–NE) vs 2.6 (0.8–NE) mos; CR rate (95% CI) was 65.2% (49.8–78.7) vs 20.0% (5.7–43.7) with Glofit-GemOx vs R-GemOx, respectively. Median OS (95% CI) was NE (22.8–NE) vs 14.4 mos (10.3–26.8) in 2L pts and 17.0 (10.7–25.8) vs 6.7 mos (4.2–14.3) in 3L+ pts with Glofit-GemOx vs R-GemOx, respectively. Median PFS (95% CI) was 20.4 (9.2–NE) vs 5.5 (2.6–9.7) mos in 2L pts and 9.2 (5.4–18.3) vs 1.9 (1.4–3.6) mos in 3L+ pts with Glofit-GemOx vs R-GemOx, respectively. CR rate (95% CI) was 63.5% (54.0–72.3) vs 28.1% (17.0–41.5) in 2L pts and 50.0% (37.6–62.4) vs 20.6% (8.7–37.9) in 3L+ pts with Glofit-GemOx vs R-GemOx, respectively. In Glofit-GemOx-treated 2L pts with a CR at C4 (first tumor assessment), the 24-mo OS rate was 85.2% (95% CI: 75.7–94.7). In 2L pts with primary refractory DLBCL or early relapse, median (95% CI) OS was 19.2 (9.9–NE) vs 12.5 mos (6.9–16.5) and PFS was 9.2 (5.8–27.4) vs 2.6 (1.8–5.6) mos; CR rate (95% CI) was 56.0% (44.7–66.8) vs 16.7% (6.4–32.8); 36-mo OS (95% CI) rate was 46.1% (35.2–56.9) vs 16.5% (3.4–29.6) with Glofit-GemOx vs R-GemOx, respectively. In 2L pts with late relapse, median OS and PFS were NE in both arms; CR rate was 83.9% (66.3–94.6) vs 47.6% (25.7–70.2); 36-mo OS (95% CI) rate was 76.8% (59.5–94.1) vs 60.0% (36.9–83.1) with Glofit-GemOx vs R-GemOx, respectively. In the safety population (172 Glofit-GemOx-treated pts; 88 R-GemOx-treated pts), Glofit-GemOx had a well-characterized safety profile, supported by robust safety management guidance. Subgroup analysis findings, including by relapse status, age, and prior LOT, were generally consistent with those of the overall safety population and comparable between arms, after accounting for differences in exposure. The most frequently reported AEs were gastrointestinal disorders including nausea and diarrhea, cytopenias such as neutropenia and thrombocytopenia, and cytokine release syndrome (CRS). CRS occurred most frequently in pts aged ≥75y (52.4%) and was mainly low grade (Gr 1, 40.5%; Gr 2, 9.5%; Gr 3, 2.4%); no pts discontinued study therapy.Conclusions:Glofit-GemOx demonstrated superior survival and response outcomes vs R-GemOx, regardless of prior LOT and age, particularly in the 2L setting including in pts with primary refractory disease and early relapse. Safety was generally consistent in pt subgroups vs the overall population and in line with prior results.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Blood
Published
2025-11-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2025-3743
Primary Topic
Lymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Glofitamab plus gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (GemOx) vs rituximab (R)-GemOx in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL): Efficacy and safety in patient subgroups

Jeremy S. Abramson, Huilai Zhang, William Townsend, Dok Hyun Yoon et al.
Blood
Lymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
article

Glofitamab plus gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (GemOx) vs rituximab (R)-GemOx in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL): Efficacy and safety in patient subgroups

Jeremy S. Abramson, Huilai Zhang, William Townsend, Dok Hyun Yoon, Won-Seog Kim, Rogachikova Ta, Estefania Mulvihill, Martine Kallemeijn, Gareth Peter Gregory, Linda Lundberg, Mark Hertzberg, Haifaa Abdulhaq, Hervé Ghesquières, Matthew Ku, Christopher P. Fox, Murali Kesavan, Voleak Choeurng, Qingyuan Zhang, Huiqiang Huang
article en

Abstract

Abstract Background Glofitamab, a CD20xCD3 bispecific antibody, plus GemOx (Glofit-GemOx) has shown overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and complete response (CR) rate benefits compared with R-GemOx, in patients (pts) with autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT)-ineligible R/R DLBCL in the Phase III STARGLO trial (NCT04408638; Abramson et al. Lancet 2024). We present efficacy and safety in clinically relevant subgroups from STARGLO. Methods:Pts were randomized 2:1 to Glofit-GemOx (8 cycles plus 4 cycles of glofitamab monotherapy) or R-GemOx (8 cycles). Glofitamab was given in Cycle (C)1 as weekly step-up doses (2.5/10mg), with the 30mg target dose every 21 days from C2 Day 1. Pts with one prior line of therapy (LOT; second-line [2L]) needed to be ASCT-ineligible. Endpoints included OS, PFS, and CR rate. Results:At the data cut-off (May 1, 2025), 183 pts were enrolled to Glofit-GemOx and 91 to R-GemOx; 101 pts were aged <65 years (y; n=67 and n=34), 173 were aged ≥65y (n=116 and n=57), and 66 were aged ≥75y (n=46 and n=20), respectively. Overall, 172 (62.8%) pts had one prior LOT (n=115, Glofit-GemOx; n=57, R-GemOx) and 102 (37.2%) had ≥2 prior LOT (third-line+ [3L+]; n=68, Glofit-GemOx; n=34, R-GemOx). Among 2L pts, early relapse (≤12 months [mos] after treatment) occurred in 120 pts (n=84, Glofit-GemOx; n=36, R-GemOx) and late relapse (>12 mos after treatment) in 52 pts (n=31, Glofit-GemOx; n=21, R-GemOx). At the data cut-off, overall median OS follow-up was 35.1 mos (95% CI: 33.6–37.6). In pts aged <65y, median (95% CI) OS was 27.0 (13.7– not estimable [NE]) vs 9.0 (5.5–34.4) mos and PFS was 9.6 (5.8–NE) vs 5.2 (1.5–5.6) mos; CR rate (95% CI) was 58.2% (45.5–70.2) vs 26.5% (12.9–44.4) with Glofit-GemOx vs R-GemOx, respectively. In pts aged ≥65y, median (95% CI) OS was 25.0 (12.9–NE) vs 13.8 (7.6–18.5) mos and PFS was 15.8 (8.7–28.8) vs 3.0 (2.1–9.7) mos; CR rate (95% CI) was 58.6% (49.1–67.7) vs 24.6% (14.1–37.8) with Glofit-GemOx vs R-GemOx, respectively. In pts aged ≥75y, median (95% CI) OS was 33.0 (20.4–NE) vs 8.3 (3.8–15.7) mos and PFS was NE (17.0–NE) vs 2.6 (0.8–NE) mos; CR rate (95% CI) was 65.2% (49.8–78.7) vs 20.0% (5.7–43.7) with Glofit-GemOx vs R-GemOx, respectively. Median OS (95% CI) was NE (22.8–NE) vs 14.4 mos (10.3–26.8) in 2L pts and 17.0 (10.7–25.8) vs 6.7 mos (4.2–14.3) in 3L+ pts with Glofit-GemOx vs R-GemOx, respectively. Median PFS (95% CI) was 20.4 (9.2–NE) vs 5.5 (2.6–9.7) mos in 2L pts and 9.2 (5.4–18.3) vs 1.9 (1.4–3.6) mos in 3L+ pts with Glofit-GemOx vs R-GemOx, respectively. CR rate (95% CI) was 63.5% (54.0–72.3) vs 28.1% (17.0–41.5) in 2L pts and 50.0% (37.6–62.4) vs 20.6% (8.7–37.9) in 3L+ pts with Glofit-GemOx vs R-GemOx, respectively. In Glofit-GemOx-treated 2L pts with a CR at C4 (first tumor assessment), the 24-mo OS rate was 85.2% (95% CI: 75.7–94.7). In 2L pts with primary refractory DLBCL or early relapse, median (95% CI) OS was 19.2 (9.9–NE) vs 12.5 mos (6.9–16.5) and PFS was 9.2 (5.8–27.4) vs 2.6 (1.8–5.6) mos; CR rate (95% CI) was 56.0% (44.7–66.8) vs 16.7% (6.4–32.8); 36-mo OS (95% CI) rate was 46.1% (35.2–56.9) vs 16.5% (3.4–29.6) with Glofit-GemOx vs R-GemOx, respectively. In 2L pts with late relapse, median OS and PFS were NE in both arms; CR rate was 83.9% (66.3–94.6) vs 47.6% (25.7–70.2); 36-mo OS (95% CI) rate was 76.8% (59.5–94.1) vs 60.0% (36.9–83.1) with Glofit-GemOx vs R-GemOx, respectively. In the safety population (172 Glofit-GemOx-treated pts; 88 R-GemOx-treated pts), Glofit-GemOx had a well-characterized safety profile, supported by robust safety management guidance. Subgroup analysis findings, including by relapse status, age, and prior LOT, were generally consistent with those of the overall safety population and comparable between arms, after accounting for differences in exposure. The most frequently reported AEs were gastrointestinal disorders including nausea and diarrhea, cytopenias such as neutropenia and thrombocytopenia, and cytokine release syndrome (CRS). CRS occurred most frequently in pts aged ≥75y (52.4%) and was mainly low grade (Gr 1, 40.5%; Gr 2, 9.5%; Gr 3, 2.4%); no pts discontinued study therapy.Conclusions:Glofit-GemOx demonstrated superior survival and response outcomes vs R-GemOx, regardless of prior LOT and age, particularly in the 2L setting including in pts with primary refractory disease and early relapse. Safety was generally consistent in pt subgroups vs the overall population and in line with prior results.

BloodVol. 146(Supplement 1)
Roche (Switzerland) (CH), University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB), University of Nottingham (GB), Harbin Medical University (CN), Sun Yat-sen University (CN), The University of Melbourne (AU), Samsung Medical Center (KR), Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital (CN), University of Ulsan (KR), St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne (AU), Acentech (United States) (US), Hospices Civils de Lyon (FR), Third Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University (CN), Prince of Wales Hospital (AU), Roche (United Kingdom) (GB), Monash Health (AU), Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center (CN), Center for Cancer Research (US), University College London (GB), Monash University (AU), California State University, Fresno (US), Sungkyunkwan University (KR)
Openalex Percentile: Top 47%
Lymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.