Loretta J. Nastoupil, MD

Scientific developments, particularly in antibody engineering, have led to numerous innovations in cancer immunotherapy.

 One of the
most promising innovations has been the development of bispecific antibodies (bsAbs).

These specialized therapeutics combine the specificities of 2 antibodies to simultaneously detect 2 separate epitopes or antigens on tumor cells or in the tumor microenvironment.

“The idea is that the antigen acts as a bridge,” Farhad Ravandi-Kashani, MD, the Janiece and Stephen A. Lasher Professor of Medicine and Chief of Section of Developmental Therapeutics in the Department of Leukemia at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said in an
interview with Targeted Therapies in Oncology™. “It recruits T cells and brings them over to the malignant cells. The T cells then get activated and
destroy the malignant cells.”


In 2014, blinatumomab (Blincyto), a CD19/CD3 bispecific T-cell engager antibody, became the first bsAb approved in the United States to treat relapsed/refractory (R/R) B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) and Philadelphia chromosome–negative B-ALL.

 Topp et al analyzed pooled 3 year follow-up data from 2 single-arm phase 2 trials (NCT01209286 and NCT01466179) of blinatumomab therapy in 259 patients with R/R B-cell precursor ALL at high risk for unfavorable outcomes and found that it induced favorable long-term survival rates.

Because of their unique mechanisms of action and growing ease of production, bsAbs have the potential to become a valuable weapon against cancer.

 At present, more than 100 bsAb formats have been developed, and 57 bsAb therapies were in clinical trials as of 2019.

With further technological advancements in bsAb manufacturing and a deeper understanding of target expression on cancer cells, currently retractable disease may someday become manageable.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell treatment for B-cell leukemia and lymphoma has shown impressive clinical success in recent years.

 Between 30% and 40% of patients with lymphoma with high-risk features have sustained responses to CAR T cells; however, many obstacles limit
their therapeutic efficacy.

 As an alternative to CAR T-cell therapy, bsAbs have shown promising activity in aggressive tumors and can potentially circumvent some of these challenges.


“The main advantage of bsAbs over [autologous] CAR T cells is that they’re off-the-shelf,” Ravandi-Kashani said. “You don’t have to engineer [bsAbs] for the patient.” As an off-the-shelf option, bsAbs can be used immediately and do not require a lengthy production process. On the other hand, CAR T cells are customized to each patient, and manufacturing time is typically greater than 3 to 4 weeks. Consequently, bsAb therapy may be a better option for individuals with rapidly progressive disease.


In addition, although bsAbs are linked to adverse effects (AEs) comparable to those seen with CAR T cells (FIGURE 1

), such as cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and central nervous system toxicities, these AEs seem less frequent and severe.

“ [BsAbs] have some of the same toxicities as CAR [T-cell
therapy] in terms of CRS. Still, in general, it’s confined to the first cycle and is pretty manageable,” Loretta J. Nastoupil, MD, an associate professor and deputy chair in the Department of Lymphoma/Myeloma at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, said in an interview with Targeted
Therapies in Oncology™.


Additionally, despite the persistence of CAR T cells, disease relapse can occur.

 Immunosuppression from the tumor microenvironment, host
systemic inflammation, and intrinsic T-cell dysfunction may explain this occurrence.

 BsAbs also rely on host T-cell function, therefore T-cell exhaustion and dysfunction could also underlie resistance to these therapies.


BsAbs that are specific to CD3 show striking kinship with the adoptive cell transfer of T cells expressing CAR transgenes. CD3-BsAbs and CAR T cells are similar in many ways: Both target a surface tumor-associated antigen, exploit T-cell effector functions, and both are successfully used in the clinic for hematological malignancies and show a similar type of toxicity profile.

Also, resistance to anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) can occur through loss of CD20 protein expression.

 Whether this is a relevant mechanism of resistance to CD20/CD3 bsAbs is unclear.


Ultimately, the efficacy of bsAbs compared with CAR T cells is unknown. For FDA-approved anti-CD19 CAR T-cell treatment of R/R large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL), response rates are between 52% and 82%, with complete response (CR) rates between 40% and 54%.

 Long-term follow-up data indicate that responses are durable, particularly for patients with CRs.

 Rates of response to bsAbs in aggressive lymphomas vary from 33% to 71%, with CRs of 19% to 64%, though these results may be influenced by previous CAR T-cell exposure. However, the experience with bsAbs is relatively limited, long-term follow-up is scant, and information on the durability of response is still lacking.

Similarly, it is unclear how these agents compare with CAR
T-cell therapies in terms of survival. However, evidence shows that bsAbs are efficacious in individuals who have disease recurrence following CAR T-cell therapy.


There have been significant therapeutic advancements in multiple myeloma (MM). Regardless, it remains primarily incurable, and novel therapeutic options are needed.

 The October 2022 approval of teclistamab
(Tecvayli), a bsAb that binds B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) and CD3, expressed on T cells, to direct T cells to kill MM cells, provides one such option.

 In the Majes-TEC-1 trial (NCT04557098), 165 patients with R/R MM received teclistamab monotherapy at the recommended phase 2 dose. Results showed that 58.8% of patients had a very good partial response (VGPR) or better, and nearly 40% showed a CR (FIGURE 2

). In phase 2 of the MajesTEC-1 trial, patients with R/R MM who had received 3 or more prior lines of therapy were given teclistamab. At a median follow-up of 14.1 months, investigators reported the objective response rate(ORR) was 63.0%
and the duration of response (DOR) was 18.4 months. The median progressive-free survival (mPFS) was 11.3 months, and the median overall survival was 18.3 months.

In the TRIMM-2 trial (NCT04108195), talquetamab was given with CD38 mAb
daratumumab (Darzalex) to patients with R/R MM who had received 3 or more prior lines of therapy. Study results showed that the combination therapy at the recommended phase 2 doses of talquetamab achieved high response rates; specifically, an ORR of 76.5%, a very good partial response or better of 64.7%, and a CR or better of 29.4%.

 The ongoing TRIMM-3 trial (NCT05338775) is assessing the safety and tolerability of a PD-1 inhibitor in combination with talquetamab or teclistamab for treating R/R MM.


Recently, elranatamab, a BCMA/CD3-targeted bsAb, was granted breakthrough therapy designation for the treatment of patients with R/R MM.

The basis for this designation was 6-month follow-up data from the
MagnetisMM-3 trial (NCT04649359), which showed an overall response rate of 61.0% among patients with no previous exposure to BCMA-targeted treatments. In addition, 90.4% of responders sustained the response
for at least 6 months. Lastly, elranatamab had a manageable safety profile, and most AEs were grade 1 or 2 in severity.


Another bsAb in the pipeline for MM treatment is ABBV-383, an anti–BCMA/
CD3 bsAb. Preclinical studies have shown that ABBV-383 maximizes MM target cell destruction while minimizing off-target toxicity and CRS.

D’Souza et al demonstrated that in 79 patients with R/R MM with 3 or more prior lines of therapy, ABBV-383 monotherapy generated an ORR of 57% and a 43% rate of VGPR or better. The most common treatment-emergent AE (TEAE) was CRS, and most TEAEs were grade 1 or 2 in severity.

Zonder et al recently published data from the LINKER-MM1 study (NCT03761108) regarding REGN5458, which is another BCMA/CD3 bsAb.

Previously, investigators demonstrated that REGN5458 induced early, deep, and durable responses in heavily pre-treated patients with R/R MM refractory to at least 3 lines of therapy. Monotherapy with REGN5458 was also well tolerated and had an acceptable safety profile. The updated analysis determined that REGN5458 maintained an acceptable safety and tolerability profile after dose escalation in patients with triple- to penta-refractory R/R MM. In addition, the response rate for the combined 96- and 200-mg dose levels was 73.3%.

Lastly, monotherapy with cevostamab, an Fc receptor-homolog 5 (FcRH5)/CD3 bsAb, demonstrated clinically meaningful activity in heavily pretreated patients with R/R MM in a phase 1 trial (NCT03275103).25The type I membrane protein FcRH5 is expressed exclusively in the B-cell lineage, with higher expression on myeloma cells than on healthy B cells. Thus, cevostamab-enhanced T cell–mediated cytotoxicity is specific to malignant cells. The median duration of response was 15.6 months, and the ORRs in patients with prior exposure to CAR T cells, bsAbs, and antibody drug conjugates were 44.4% (4 of 9 patients), 33.3% (3 of 9), and 50.0%
(7 of 14), respectively.

Although CAR T cells have transformed the B-cell lymphoma therapeutic landscape, many individuals are refractory to therapy or experience a relapse of their illness. BsAb therapy provides an alternate option that may be more suitable for many patients. All bsAbs for lymphoma treatment target
CD20 and CD3; CD20 is widely expressed on malignant B cells. One such therapeutic is epcoritamab, a CD20/CD3 bsAb that is given subcutaneously. This administration route “leads to more delayed absorption, which may be a strategy to address CRS,” Nastoupil said.


In the EPCORE NHL-1 trial (NCT03625037), epcoritamab was given to patients with relapsed, progressive, or refractory CD20-positivematureB-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (B-NHL), including LBCL and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Epcoritamab elicited an ORR of 63% and a CR rate
of 39%. The median duration of response was 12 months.

In the dose-escalation phase of EPCORE NHL-1, epcoritamab demonstrated an ORR of 68% in patients with DLBCL with a CR rate of 45%. In patients with follicular lymphoma (FL), the ORR was 90% with a CR rate of 50%. Moreover, the safety profile was manageable and similar to previous findings.

 A follow-up trial, EPCORE NHL-2 (NCT04663347), evaluated the safety and efficacy of epcoritamab plus rituximab (Rituxan) and lenalidomide (Revlimid) in 27 patients with R/R FL. The combination treatment achieved an ORR of 100% and a 93% complete metabolic response rate among all patients.

As far as epcoritamab receiving FDA authorization, Nastoupil is confident it will happen by spring 2023. “[Epcoritamab] may be an attractive option for community sites, given its subcutaneous route...the chair time might be reduced, so patients are in and out a little faster,” she said. 

Another CD20/CD3 bsAb, mosunetuzumab (Lunsumio), induced deep and durable remissions and had a manageable safety profile in patients with R/R FL in a pivotal phase 2 study (NCT02500407).

 Matasar et al discovered that mosunetuzumab induced an ORR of 87% and a CR rate of 70% in patients aged 65 years or older with R/R FL and at least 2 previous treatments. Results in patients younger than 65 were less impressive, with an ORR of 77% and a CR rate of 55%. Moreover, the rate of serious AEs was numerically lower in older individuals than in younger ones (37% vs 52%).

In the CELESTIMO trial (NCT04712097), investigators are assessing the efficacy and safety of mosunetuzumab in combination with lenalidomide vs rituximab plus lenalidomide in patients with treatment-refractory R/R FL.

Lenalidomide is an immunomodulatory agent that improved the efficacy of rituximabin the trial.

 A previous phase 1b study (NCT4246086) showed that the mosunetuzumab/lenalidomide combination induced favorable safety and promising activity in patients with treatment-refractory R/R FL, providing the rationale for the CELESTIMO trial.

Results from this trial are not yet complete.


Budde et al assessed the safety and anti-tumor activity of fixed-duration mosunetuzumab in patients with R/R FL who had received 2 or more previous therapies.

 “Because mosunetuzumab has a very favorable safety profile and promising efficacy across B-cell lymphomas, a phase 2 expansion was launched in R/R FL,” Nastoupil said. Patients in the study had at least 2 prior lines of therapy, including an anti-CD20 antibody and an alkylating agent.


“In this phase 2 single-arm study, mosunetuzumab as a single agent resulted
in quite impressive efficacy,” Nastoupil said. “The ORR was [approximately] 80%, the CR rate was 60%, and the [mPFS] was [approximately] 17 months. That compares quite favorably to the other options in the third line or later settings. And because most patients had grade 1 CRS, [and] few had grade 2 or higher, [mosunetuzumab] can likely be safely administered in an outpatient setting.”


Mosunetuzumab was also effective in treating R/RB-NHL. A dose-escalation
study of single-agent mosunetuzumab demonstrated that the best ORRs across all doses investigated were 34.9% and 66.2% in patients with aggressive and indolent B-NHL, respectively.

In comparison, the CR rates were 19.4% and 48.5%. Furthermore, the median DOR for individuals with a CR was 22.8 months for aggressive B-NHL and 20.4 months for indolentB-NHL. The most common AEs were neutropenia, low-grade CRS, and hypophosphatemia.

The ELM-1 trial (NCT02290951) assessed the safety and tolerability of odronextamab, a CD20/CD3 bsAb, in patients with CD20-positive B-cell malignancies who had previously received CD20-directed antibody treatment.

A total of 145 heavily pretreated individuals were included in the study; 94 were enrolled in the dose-escalation portion of the study and 51 were enrolled in the dose-expansion portion. Results showed 72 of 142 trial participants achieved a response, for an ORR of 51%. Moreover, the
ORR was 91% (29 of 32) among patients with FL whose odronextamab dose was 5 mg or higher. Of these 32 responders, 23 (72%) had a CR. The safety profile was manageable, with most cases of CRS and neurological AEs being mild in severity.

Pivotal phase 2 data presented at the 2022 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting showed that glofitamab, another CD20/CD3 bsAb, induced durable CRs in patients with R/R DLBCL who had received a median of 3 prior therapies (NCT03075696).

Because of its unique configuration, glofitamab may have certain benefits over other bsAbs, according to Nastoupil. “Glofitamab has a 2:1 targeting of CD20 to CD3,” she said. “As a result, it might have even greater potency than what we see with mosunetuzumab.”


Among study participants, 59% were refractory to their initial therapy, and
approximately 35% had received prior CAR T-cell therapy. Most CRs were durable and ongoing at 12 months. CRS was the most common AE and was generally low grade, associated with initial doses, and caused only a single discontinuation.


“[Glofitamab’s] efficacy looks potentially even more promising than mosunetuzumab, particularly in the aggressive lymphoma subtypes,” Nastoupil said. “I expect it will be FDA approved this spring for the treatment of DLBCL in the third line or later stages.”


Moreover, glofitamab therapy was effective in R/R mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).

 In a cohort of 29 patients with R/R MCL, glofitamab induced an ORR of 81%. Heini et al administered glofitamab to 2 patients with MCL who had relapsed after CAR T-cell therapy.

Glofitamab treatment resulted in a considerable increase in circulating CAR T cells and objective responses in both patients. However, the study authors asserted that because of the small sample size, any correlation between CAR T-cell levels and clinical response remains speculative, and the relative contributions of the bsAb and CAR
T-cell therapy cannot be determined.


Regarding the future of bsAbs, Nastoupil noted that research is ongoing. “There are other [bsAb] targets being explored,” she said, highlighting CD22 and ROR1 as 2 such targets of interest.


Wei et al demonstrated that REGN5837, a CD22/CD28 bsAb, enhanced the
antitumor activity of odronextamab in preclinical DLBCL models. Moreover, the combination of these 2 bsAbs may provide an alternative to chemotherapy for treating DLBCL.

Another bsAb, NVG-111, is a first-in-class, humanized, tandem scFv ROR1xCD3 bispecific T-cell engager. This therapy showed efficacy in a first-in-human phase 1/2 clinical trial for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and MCL in patients who had received 2 or more prior systemic therapies (NCT04763083).

“There are other targets...that are also being explored with bsAbs and
even trispecifics [FIGURE2

], where you may have a CD19/CD20/CD3 agent that’sbeingexplored,” Nastoupil said. Through in vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo
research, Wang et al demonstrated that A-319 (a CD3/CD19 bsAb) and A-2019 (a novel CD3/CD19/CD20 trispecific mAb) are effective antitumor agents that can recruit CD3-positive T cells and enhance their function, mediate B-cell depletion, and ultimately inhibit tumor growth in Raji xenograft models.


“The other strategy being looked at is enhancing the activation of these
endogenous T cells,” Nastoupil said. “Combining these bsAbs with cytokines, or costimulatory molecules such as 4-1BB, are strategies that are also being explored.”


For Ravandi-Kashani, broadening the function of bsAbs is essential. “I am quite happy that bsAbs are being approved [in certain cancers],” he said.“ Hopefully, we will have a similar situation in [acute myelogenous leukemia] as well.”

Moon D, Tae N, Park Y, Lee SW, Kim DH. Development of bispecific antibody for cancer immunotherapy: focus on T cell engaging antibody. 

. 2022;22(1):e4. doi:10.4110/in.2022.22.e4

Shin HG, Yang HR, Yoon A, Lee S. Bispecific antibody-based immune-cell engagers and their emerging therapeutic targets in cancer immunotherapy. 

. 2022;23(10):5686. doi:10.3390/ijms23105686

Labrijn, AF, Janmaat ML, Reichert JM, Parren, P. Bispecific antibodies: a mechanistic review of the pipeline. 

Li H, Er Saw P, Song E. Challenges and strategies for next-generation bispecific antibody-based antitumor therapeutics. 

. 2020;17(5):451-461. doi:10.1038/s41423-020-0417-8

Topp MS, Gökbuget N, Zugmaier G, et al. Long-term survival of patients with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia treated with blinatumomab. 

. 2021;127(4):554-559. doi:10.1002/cncr.33298

Suurs FV, Lub-de Hooge MN, de Vries EGE, de Groot DJA. A review of bispecific antibodies and antibody constructs in oncology and clinical challenges. 

. 2019;201:103-119. doi:10.1016/j.pharmthera.2019.04.006

Shim H. Bispecific Antibodies and Antibody-Drug Conjugates for Cancer Therapy: Technological Considerations. 

. 2020;10(3):360. doi:10.3390/biom10030360

Karmali R. Relapsed disease: off-the-shelf immunotherapies vs customized engineered products. 

. 2021;2021(1):164-173. doi:10.1182/hematology.2021000249

Jaeger U, Bishop MR, Salles G, et al. Myc expression and tumor-infiltrating T cells are associated with response in patients (Pts) with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (r/r DLBCL) treated with tisagenlecleucel in the JULIET trial. 

Locke FL, Rossi JM, Neelapu SS, et al. Tumor burden, inflammation, and product attributes determine outcomes of axicabtagene ciloleucel in large B-cell lymphoma. 

. 2020;4(19):4898-4911. doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2020002394

Middelburg J, Kemper K, Engelberts P, Labrijn AF, Schuurman J, van Hall T. Overcoming challenges for cd3-bispecific antibody therapy in solid tumors. 

. 2021;13(2):287. doi:10.3390/cancers13020287

Hiraga J, Tomita A, Sugimoto T, et al. Down-regulation of CD20 expression in B-cell lymphoma cells after treatment with rituximab-containing combination chemotherapies: its prevalence and clinical significance. 

 2009;113(20):4885-4893. doi:10.1182/blood-2008-08-175208

Neelapu SS, Locke FL, Bartlett NL, et al. Axicabtagene ciloleucel CAR T-cell therapy in refractory large B-cell lymphoma. 

Schuster SJ, Bishop MR, Tam CS, et al; JULIET Investigators. Tisagenlecleucel in adult relapsed refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. 

Abramson JS, Palomba ML, Gordon LI, et al. Lisocabtagene maraleucel for patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphomas (TRANSCEND NHL 001): a multicentre seamless design study. 

Pillarisetti K, Powers G, Luistro L, et al. Teclistamab is an active T cell-redirecting bispecific antibody against B-cell maturation antigen for multiple myeloma. 

. 2020;4(18):4538-4549. doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2020002393

FDA approves teclistamab-cqyv for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. News release. Accessed November 27, 2022. 

Garfall AL, Usmani SZ, Mateos MV, et al. Updated Phase 1 Results of Teclistamab, a B-Cell Maturation Antigen (BCMA) x CD3 Bispecific antibody, in relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). 

https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2020-138831

Moreau P, Garfall AL, van de Donk NWCJ, et al. Teclistamab in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. 

. 2022;387(6):495-505. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2203478

Minnema M, Krishnan AY, Berdeja JG, et al. Efficacy and safety of talquetamab, a G protein-coupled receptor family C group 5 member D x CD3 bispecific antibody, in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM): updated results from MonumenTAL-1. 

. 2022;40(16 suppl):8015-8015. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2022.40.16_suppl.8015

van de Donk NWJC, Bahlis N, Mateos M-V, et al. Novel combination immunotherapy for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: updated phase 1b results for talquetamab (a GPRC5D x CD3 bispecific antibody) in combination with daratumumab. Abstract S183. Presented at: European Hematology Association 2022 Hybrid Congress. Accessed November 10, 2022. 

Pfizer’s elranatamab granted FDA breakthrough therapy designation for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. News release. Pfizer Inc. November 3, 2022. Accessed November 8, 2022. 

D’Souza A, Shah N, Rodriguez C, et al. A phase I first-in-human study of ABBV-383, a B-Cell maturation antigen × CD3 bispecific T-cell redirecting antibody, in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. 

. 2022;40(31):3576-3586. doi:10.1200/JCO.22.01504

Zonder JA, Richter J, Bumma N, et al. Early, deep, and durable responses, and low rates of cytokine release syndrome with REGN5458, a BCMAxCD3 bispecific antibody, in a phase 1/2 first-in-human study in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). 

. 2021;138(suppl 1):160-160. doi:10.1182/blood-2021-144921

Trudel S, Cohen AD, Krishnan AY, et al. Cevostamab monotherapy continues to show clinically meaningful activity and manageable safety in patients with heavily pre-treated relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM): updated results from an ongoing phase I study. 

https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2021-147983

Genmab announces late-breaking phase 2 trial results of investigational epcoritamab (DuoBody®-CD3xCD20) in relapsed/refractory large b-cell lymphoma (LBCL) patients presented at European Hematology Association (EHA) Presidential Symposium. Genmab A/S. June 11, 2022. Accessed October 28, 2022. 

Hutchings M, Mous R, Clausen MR, et al. Dose escalation of subcutaneous epcoritamab in patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma: an open-label, phase 1/2 study. 

. 2021;398(10306):1157-1169. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00889-8.

Falchi L, Leppä S, Wahlin BE, et al. Subcutaneous epcoritamab with rituximab + lenalidomide (R2) in patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory (R/R) follicular lymphoma (FL): Update from phase 1/2 trial. 

. 2022;40(suppl 16):7524. doi:10.1200/JCO.2022.40.16_suppl.7524

Budde LE, Sehn LH, Matasar MJ, et al. Mosunetuzumab Monotherapy Is an Effective and Well-Tolerated Treatment Option for Patients with Relapsed/Refractory (R/R) Follicular Lymphoma (FL) Who Have Received ≥2 Prior Lines of Therapy: Pivotal Results from a Phase I/II Study. 

https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2021-145872

Matasar M, Bartlett NL, Sehn LH, et al. P1126: Mosunetuzumab is efficacious and well tolerated in patients aged <65 and ≥65 years with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma and ≥2 prior therapies: subgroup analysis of a pivotal phase II study. 

. 2022;6(suppl ):1016-1017. doi:10.1097/01.HS9.0000847372.57687.d4

Nastoupil L, Morschhauser F, Scholz CW, et al. P1125: CELESTIMO: a phase III trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of mosunetuzumab plus lenalidomide versus rituximab plus lenalidomide in patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma. 

. 2022;6(Suppl ):1015-1016. doi:10.1097/01.HS9.0000847368.92731.fb

Leonard JP, Trneny M, Izutsu K, et al. AUGMENT: A phase III study of lenalidomide plus rituximab versus placebo plus rituximab in relapsed or refractory indolent lymphoma. 

. 2019;37(14):1188-1199. doi:10.1200/JCO.19.00010

Budde LE, Sehn LH, Matasar M, et al. Safety and efficacy of mosunetuzumab, a bispecific antibody, in patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma: a single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 study. 

. 2022;23(8):1055-1065. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00335-7

Budde LE, Assouline S, Sehn LH, et al. Single-agent mosunetuzumab shows durable complete responses in patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell lymphomas: phase I dose-escalation study. 

. 2022;40(5):481-491. doi:10.1200/JCO.21.00931

Bannerji R, Arnason JE, Advani RH, et al. Odronextamab, a human CD20×CD3 bispecific antibody in patients with CD20-positive B-cell malignancies (ELM-1): results from the relapsed or refractory non-Hodgkin lymphoma cohort in a single-arm, multicentre, phase 1 trial. 

 2022;9(5):e327-e339. doi:10.1016/S2352-3026(22)00072-2

Dickinson M, Carlo-Stella C, Morschhauser F, et al. Glofitamab in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and ≥ 2 prior therapies: Pivotal phase II expansion results. 

. 2022;40(suppl 16):7500-7500. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2022.40.16_suppl.7500

Phillips T, Dickinson M, Morschhauser F, et al. Glofitamab step-up dosing induces high response rates in patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory (R/R) mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), most of whom had failed prior Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) therapy. 

. 2021; 138 (1): 130. doi.org/10.1182/blood-2021-148949

Heini AD, Bacher U, Porret N, et al. Experiences with glofitamab administration following CAR T therapy in patients with relapsed mantle cell lymphoma. 

. 2022;11(17):2747. doi:10.3390/cells11172747

Wei J, Montalvo-Ortiz W, Yu L, et al. CD22-targeted CD28 bispecific antibody enhances antitumor efficacy of odronextamab in refractory diffuse large B cell lymphoma models. 

. 2022;14(670):eabn1082. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.abn1082

Jasani P, Townsend W, Asher S, et al. First-in-human phase 1 study of a ROR1 targeting bispecific T cell engager (NVG-111) shows evidence of efficacy in patients with relapsed/refractory CLL and MCL. 

. 2022;40(suppl 16):7535. doi:10.1200/JCO.2022.40.16_suppl.7535

Runcie K, Budman DR, John V, Seetharamu N. Bi-specific and tri-specific antibodies- the next big thing in solid tumor therapeutics. 

. 2018;24(1):50. doi:10.1186/s10020-018-0051-4

Wang S, Peng L, Xu W, et al. Preclinical characterization and comparison between CD3/CD19 bispecific and novel CD3/CD19/CD20 trispecific antibodies against B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia: targeted immunotherapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia. 

. 2022;16(1):139-149. doi:10.1007/s11684-021-0835-8


Articles

One of the most promising innovations in the multiple myeloma space has been
the development of bispecific antibodies.

A Flood of Bispecific Antibodies Anticipated in Multiple Myeloma

 Case Based Peer Perspectives Roundtable event, Loretta J. Nastoupil, MD, associate professor, director, Lymphoma Outcomes Database, section chief, New Drug Development, in the Department of Lymphoma/Myeloma, Division Cancer Medicine, at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, discussed the case of a 74-year-old patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. 

: What are the potential second- and third-line therapy options for this patient at this point in their treatment?

: The current NCCN [National Comprehensive Cancer Network] guidelines...look like a laundry list of a number of different therapeutic options and [do] not necessarily provide an algorithm for what might be the preferred choice based [on] certain patient characteristics.

 It just signifies that there may be several different chemoimmuno-therapy approaches and then even some potential targeted therapy approaches.

Then in the third line, CAR [chimeric antigen receptor] T-cell therapy becomes an option for patients.

Why is the tafasitamab and lenalidomide regimen listed in this poll? What is the rationale for combining these agents?

For those who may not be familiar, tafasitamab is a naked CD19 antibody, not a CAR T therapy. It’s not an antibody-drug conjugate but a naked antibody engineered for enhanced ADCC [anti- body-dependent cellular cytotoxicity].

Tafasitamab and lenalidomide were approved in July 2020 for the treatment of DLBCL.

 It’s an interesting label in that it is approved for patients who are not transplant candidates, and so that raises the question of how you define a nontransplant candidate. It’s approved in combination withlenalidomide, 25 mg dosed 1 through 21 of a 28-day cycle; the lenalidomide is continued for a maximum of 12 cycles, but the tafasitamab is continued as monotherapy until disease progression or intolerance.

Tafasitamab was engineered for enhanced ADCC and direct cell death. Investigators saw encouraging activity in a phase 1 trial as a single agent. Then the rationale for combination with lenalidomide is because of the enhanced ADCC and because of activity seen with rituximab [Rituxan] and lenalidomide across a number of B-cell lymphoma subtypes. It was felt that this might be an interesting synergistic combination, and then [investigators] set out to explore it further in this phase 2 study in relapsed/refractory DLBCL.

Which trial looked at this combination, and what was the design?

The L-MIND study [NCT02399085] was an open-label, multi-center study.

[Investigators] evaluated patients with relapsed/ refractory DLBCL. Now some important eligibility criteria are worth noting. They restricted eligibility to patients who had had 1 to 3 prior lines of therapy, so this is not a heavily pretreated patient population.


Patients who were ineligible for high-dose chemotherapy or autologous stem cell transplant were evaluated. There are not agreed-upon criteria for who’s not a transplant candidate, other than failing to have chemotherapy-sensitive disease. But because this [trial] would enroll patients who’d only had 1 prior line of therapy, that opens the discussion to how you would define a nontransplant candidate. This was done in a number of European sites where age alone is a factor, so generally patients over the age of 70 are deemed not appropriate candidates for stem cell transplant; it’s one of the more common criteria that were applied for defining this patient population.

The study schema outlined the dosing of lenalidomide at 25 mg [daily], which is standard in multiple myeloma studies. It’s a bit higher than the standard dosing done in most Hodgkin or non-Hodgkin lymphoma studies and speaks to the evolution of treatment over time, particularly when we’ve combined [lenalidomide] with other agents. Most of the time we’re starting at 20 mg, but for the purposes of this study, in the schema it was 25 mg of lenalidomide.

It’s also important to note that there was an induction phase with the combination, and particularly during cycle 1, tafasitamab was dosed weekly with an additional loading dose on day 4 of cycle 1 and then continued weekly up to all 3 cycles— so 12 weeks of treatment. Beyond cycle 3, it was dosed every other week or every 2 weeks until disease progression or intolerance. The primary end point of the study was objective response rate [ORR] as assessed by independent central review, and then key secondary end points included progression-free survival [PFS], duration of response [DOR], and overall survival [OS], in addition to safety.

There were 81 patients enrolled on the single-arm phase 2 study, and that speaks to the fact that lymphoma is a rare tumor type. The median age was 72, again [considering] that age over 70 was one of the most common criteria utilized to define a nontransplant candidate. About 51% of the patient population had an IPI risk score of 3 or higher, 75% had advanced-stage disease, median number of prior lines of therapy was 2, and primary refractory [disease] comprised only about 19% of the patient population. These patients generally were not primary refractory, though [the trial] did include some. Prior stem cell transplant patients might be a poor transplant candidate because they’ve already had transplant; [these patients comprised] about 11% of the patient population.

What were the efficacy data seen in the L-MIND study?

The ORR determined by the independent central review was quite notable. The ORR in patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL was 60%, and the complete response rate was 43%. Probably even more important is that it appeared to be durable. The median DOR was 21.7 months. It was not reached among those patients who achieved a complete response, which was almost half the study population....DOR for patients who had a partial response [was markedly lower at] only 4.4 months, and 72% of [all] patients had an ongoing response beyond 12 months.

Importantly, there was a PFS in this patient population of 12.1 months, and median OS had not been reached. At 18 months, 64% of the patient population was still alive. I think this is important because if you put this into context, prior to the introduction of CAR T, if we look at the SCHOLAR-1 data—which were of a retrospective analysis of patients treated at MD Anderson Cancer Center, at Mayo Clinic, and in the Lysa group, which is a large French group— the median OS...was 6 months for patients with relapsed/ refractory DLBCL in second line or later.

Again, this is a marked improvement over that.

The median PFS is also quite notable at 12 months [at 50%] because the median PFS for the CAR T population was only about 6 months. Now this probably reflects a specific patient population in that most of these patients were not as heavily pretreated as the CAR T population. A small percent- age were primary refractory.

Are other studies in the DLBCL setting looking at this regimen?

There were data reported at the 2020 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting [from] the RE-MIND study [NCT04150328]....They essentially compared [the L-MIND] results with a synthetic control where they captured retrospective data of single-use lenalidomide in relapsed/refractory DLBCL and then tried to match that in terms of baseline characteristics.

It looks like [the combination] was at least a significant improvement over lenalidomide monotherapy. Then the question is really: Is it better than the other options currently available in the relapsed DLBCL space? And that hasn’t been answered. It’s moving into front line. The phase 1b data were reported. There’s a randomized study that is launching, so that will then raise the question of how we sequence treatment in DLBCL.

What was the toxicity profile of tafasitamab and lenalidomide for these patients?

The most common adverse events [AEs] were neutropenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia—not surprising to me because again this is an antibody in combination with lenalidomide.

 Grade 3 or higher neutropenia occurred in 48% of patients and grade 3 or higher thrombocytopenia in 17% of patients. Fortunately, febrile neutropenia was not high. There was 10% with grade 3 and 2% with grade 4. Growth factor use was at the discretion of the treating physician. It was not built into the protocol in terms of prophylactic use.


For the most common AEs that were nonhematologic, [what was noticeable was] the vast majority were grade 1/2, though about 9% of patients had a grade 3 rash, which is not unusual for lenalidomide in lymphoma. One percent had grade 3 diarrhea, and about 5% had hypokalemia. Some of that might be related to diarrhea and some nausea. Cough was about 1% at grade 3 or higher, and bronchitis was 1% at grade 4. Fatigue was another common AE, with 15% at grade 1 or 2.

Serious AEs occurred in 51% of the study population, although 19% were attributed to the study drug; 12% discontinued therapy as a result of toxicity, and then 9% had an AE of special interest. The AEs of special interest included tumor flare in 3 patients, and 1 patient with grade 2 basal cell carcinoma. Grade 3 [allergic dermatitis] occurred in 3 patients. There were 13% who had a treatment-emergent AE that led to death; however, according to the [investigators], none [of the deaths] were thought to be related to study treatment. The severity and incidence of the toxicities after lenalidomide was discontinued decreased, suggesting that a lot of the toxicity was due to the combination and not the CD19 monotherapy.

1. NCCN. Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. B-cell lymphomas, version 4.2020. Accessed December 15, 2020. https://bit.ly/35H3YW0


2. FDA grants accelerated approval to tafasitamab-cxix for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. FDA. Updated August 3, 2020. Accessed December 15, 2020. https://bit.ly/34Emq2z

3. Salles G, Duell J, González Barca E, et al. Tafasitamab plus lenalidomide in relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (L-MIND): a multicentre, prospective, single-arm, phase 2 study. 

l. 2020;21(7):978-988. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30225-4

4. Crump M, Neelapu SS, Farooq U, et al. Outcomes in refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: results from the international SCHOLAR-1 study. 

. 2017;130(16):1800-1808. doi:10.1182/blood-2017-03-769620 

5.Nowaskowski GS, Rodgers TD, Marino D, et al. RE-MIND study: a propensity score-based 1:1 matched comparison of tafasitamab + lenalido- mide (L-MIND) versus lenalidomide monotherapy (real-world data) in trans- plant-ineligible patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). 

. 2020;38(suppl 15):8020. doi:10.1200/ JCO.2020.38.15_suppl.8020

During a Targeted Oncology Case Based Peer Perspectives Roundtable event, Loretta J. Nastoupil, MD, discussed the case of a 74-year-old patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. 

L-MIND Trial Results Show CD19 Antibody Is Reasonable in R/R DLBCL

Loretta J. Nastoupil, MD, an assistant professor in the Department of Lymphoma/Myeloma at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, discusses the use of off-the-shelf chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell products for the treatment of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and other cancers.

Allogeneic CAR T-cell products offer advantages, such as access to more patients in a timelier manner, according to Nastoupil. A healthy donor can give to multiple CAR T-cell products that can be manufactured and stocked. Once a potential patient is identified, those cells are ready to be infused within a 2-week time frame. For a disease that progresses rapidly, this is a big advantage, says Nastoupil.

This type of product is limited because it is still in phase 1 of many trials. Investigators are focused on safety right now and have not tested the safety yet. Some wonder whether these products will induce graft-vs-host disease, which is a unique property of using a donor T cell. Nastoupil thinks that a more important question is whether patients will be able to persist since these are allogeneic cells. If these concerns are shown to be nonissues or something that can be avoided when using CAR T-cell products, then there could be access to many more patients and a better turnaround time, which could potentially lead to better efficacy for patients.

Videos

Loretta J. Nastoupil, MD, discusses the use of off-the-shelf chimeric antigen receptor T-cell products for the treatment of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and other cancers.

Loretta J. Nastoupil, MD | Authors

Articles

A Flood of Bispecific Antibodies Anticipated in Multiple Myeloma

L-MIND Trial Results Show CD19 Antibody Is Reasonable in R/R DLBCL

Off-the-Shelf CAR T-Cell Products Show Potential in DLBCL