Glofitamab plus gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (Glofit-GemOx) in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL): 2-year (yr) follow-up of STARGLO.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
7015 Background: Glofitamab, a CD20:CD3 bispecific antibody, has shown durable responses as fixed duration monotherapy in R/R DLBCL after ≥2 prior lines of therapy (LOT; Dickinson et al. NEJM 2022). When combined with GemOx, glofitamab has shown overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) benefits in autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT)-ineligible R/R DLBCL (Abramson et al. Lancet 2024). We present updated efficacy and safety of Glofit-GemOx vs rituximab (R)-GemOx in pts with R/R DLBCL after ≥1 LOT from the Phase 3 STARGLO trial (NCT04408638), including landmark analyses of pts in complete remission (CR). Methods: Pts were randomized 2:1 to Glofit-GemOx (8 cycles plus 4 cycles glofitamab monotherapy) or R-GemOx (8 cycles) and stratified by no. of prior LOT (1 vs ≥2) and refractoriness to last therapy. After obinutuzumab pretreatment, glofitamab was given in Cycle (C) 1 as weekly step-up doses (2.5/10mg) then 30mg target dose every 21 days from C2 Day 1. Pts with only 1 prior LOT must have been ASCT-ineligible. Primary endpoint was OS. Secondary endpoints included independent review committee (IRC)-assessed PFS and CR rate. A landmark analysis of pts in CR at end of treatment (EOT) was performed. Results: Of 274 pts (Glofit-GemOx, n=183; R-GemOx, n=91), 172 (62.8%) had 1 prior LOT, 102 (37.2%) had ≥2 prior LOT, 153 (55.8%) were primary refractory, and 166 (60.6%) were refractory to last therapy. Baseline characteristics were unchanged and balanced across arms. With 2 yrs follow-up (data cut off: June 17, 2024; median follow-up: 24.7 months [mo]), Glofit-GemOx continued to confer superior OS benefits (median: not evaluable [NE] vs 13.5 mo; HR 0.60, 95% CI: 0.42–0.85), median IRC-assessed PFS (13.8 vs 3.6 mo; HR 0.41, 95% CI: 0.29–0.58), and CR rate (58.5 vs 25.3%) vs R-GemOx. For Glofit-GemOx-treated pts in CR (n=107), median duration of CR was not reached (95% CI: 27.2–NE; median CR follow-up, 18.2 mo [range: 15.2–19.3]). In pts with a CR at EOT (n=82), the OS and PFS rates 1 yr after EOT were 89.3% and 82.4%, respectively. The Glofit-GemOx safety profile was unchanged. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was the most common adverse event in glofitamab-exposed pts (Grade [Gr] 1, 32.0%; Gr 2, 10.5%; Gr 3, 2.3%). Events consistent with immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome occurred in 4 pts (all concurrent with CRS; most Gr 1–2 [n=3]). Exploratory biomarker and immune recovery data will be presented. Conclusions: With 2 yrs follow-up, Glofit-GemOx sustained a clinically meaningful benefit in OS and PFS vs R-GemOx in ASCT-ineligible pts with R/R DLBCL, with most (82%) pts in CR at EOT still in remission. The safety profile was consistent with known risks of each drug. The updated analyses support the long-lasting remissions and maintained OS benefit in pts with R/R DLBCL treated with fixed duration Glofit-GemOx. Clinical trial information: NCT04408638 .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".