Long-term follow-up with sustained progression-free survival (PFS) benefit after subcutaneous (SC) mosunetuzumab in combination with polatuzumab vedotin compared with rituximab plus polatuzumab vedotin in patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: A prior analysis of mosunetuzumab (Mosun) SC, a CD20xCD3 T-cell-engaging bispecific antibody, with polatuzumab vedotin (Pola; M-Pola), an anti-CD79b monoclonal antibody, in a Phase Ib/II study (NCT03671018) showed promising durability of response and manageable safety versus (vs) rituximab (R)-Pola in patients with R/R transplant-ineligible large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL; Chavez et al. ASH 2024). Here we report an updated analysis of ≥2 years' follow-up in the randomized cohort of the Phase Ib/II study. Methods: Patients with histologically confirmed R/R LBCL and ≥1 previous line of treatment, including anti-CD20 therapy, were randomized 1:1 to receive M-Pola or R-Pola. Patients previously treated with Pola were not included. Patients in the R-Pola arm with PD during or at end of treatment (EOT) or stable disease at EOT could cross over to receive M-Pola (up to 8 cycles of cumulative Pola). Primary endpoint was best independent review committee-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per Lugano 2014 criteria. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) events were defined per ASTCT criteria. All p-values were descriptive. Results: As of November 15, 2024, 80 patients were enrolled (M-Pola, n=40; R-Pola, n=40) of which 54 patients (67.5%) were enrolled in the United States (US). Baseline characteristics were as previously reported, with 75% diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, 10% Grade 3b follicular lymphoma, 20% high-grade B-cell lymphoma, and 17.5% transformed follicular lymphoma (Chavez et al. ASH 2024). Median follow-up in the M-Pola vs R-Pola arms was 25.7 (range 1–35) months vs 27.2 (range 0‒34) months, respectively. For M-Pola vs R-Pola, best ORR and complete response (CR) rate were 78% (95% CI: 61.6–89.2) and 55% (95% CI: 38.5–70.7) vs 50% (95% CI: 33.8–66.2) and 35% (95% CI: 20.6–51.7), respectively. Median PFS was 25.4 months (95% CI: 9.2– not evaluable [NE]) for M-Pola and 6.4 months (95% CI: 4.7–18.6) for R-Pola (HR 0.47 [95% CI: 0.2–0.9] p=0.0287]). Median overall survival (OS) was not reached (NR) for M-Pola (95% CI: 17.6–NE) and 25.5 months (95% CI: 16.2–NE) for R-Pola (HR 0.78 [95% CI: 0.4‒1.5] p=0.4749). Median duration of response (DOR) and duration of CR were NR in the M-Pola arm (95% CI: 15.0–NE and 95% CI: 16.8–NE, respectively) and were 11.3 months (95% CI: 5.8–NE) and 12.7 months (95% CI: 3.6–NE) in the R-Pola arm, respectively. With a median follow-up of 18.7 (95% CI: 15.2–NE) months for 20 crossover patients, ORR was 50% (95% CI: 27.0–72.8) and the median DOR was 15.7 months (95% CI: 2.8–NE). In the safety population (n=79), no new safety signals were identified. The most common adverse events (AEs) for M-Pola vs R-Pola were diarrhea (48% vs 33%), fatigue (35% vs 31%), and nausea (25% vs 36%), respectively. Grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 58% of M-Pola vs 54% R-Pola patients; serious AEs (SAE) occurred in 33% of M-Pola vs 26% R-Pola patients. Grade 5 (fatal) AEs occurred in 5% of patients in the M-Pola arm (COVID-19 [n=1], COVID-19 pneumonia [n=1]) and 3% in the R-Pola arm (hepatic failure [n=1]). AEs leading to discontinuation of study treatment occurred in 7.5% of M-Pola patients (COVID-19 pneumonia [n=1], peripheral motor neuropathy [n=1], peripheral sensory neuropathy [n=1]) and in 7.7% of R-Pola patients (peripheral neuropathy [n=1], neutrophil count decreased [n=1], pain in extremity [n=1]). CRS events were reported in 13% (5/40) of patients in the M-Pola arm: all were low grade (Grade 1: 10%; Grade 2: 3%) and occurred during Cycle 1 Days 1–7, with median time to CRS onset of 2 days (range 1–3) and median duration of 2 days (range 1–5), and all CRS events were resolved. Other AEs of interest included serious infections, which occurred in 23% and 18% of patients in M-Pola and R-Pola arms, respectively. There were no investigator-reported events of immune effector-cell associated neurotoxicity syndrome. Neutropenia occurred in 40.0% of M-Pola patients (Grade 2: 7.5%; Grade 3/4: 32.5%); 1 patient experienced a Grade 3 event of febrile neutropenia. Conclusions: Fixed-duration outpatient M-Pola continues to demonstrate clinically meaningful and sustained improvements across all efficacy endpoints compared with R-Pola. These extended follow-up results reveal no new safety signals, reinforcing the treatment's favorable profile. The findings provide strong additional evidence for the long-term efficacy of the M-Pola regimen in the US patient population, supporting broad use in the second-line plus setting.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".