Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40153222›Full record

SynthesisAdvances in therapy2025

Loncastuximab Tesirine Versus Polatuzumab Vedotin Plus Bendamustine and Rituximab in Relapsed/Refractory DLBCL After ≥ 2 Lines of Therapy: Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison.

Koo Wilson, Francesca Chiodi, Abby Paine, Zalmai Hakimi, Victoria Ward, Tom Macmillan, Daniel Eriksson, Silvia Mappa

Abstract readComparative StudySystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Advances in therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Koo WilsonSwedish Orphan Biovitrum AB, 112 76, Stockholm, Sweden. Koo.wilson@sobi.com.
Francesca ChiodiSwedish Orphan Biovitrum AB, 112 76, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abby PaineSource Health Economics, 91 Wimpole Street, London, W1G 0EF1, UK.
Zalmai HakimiSwedish Orphan Biovitrum AB, 112 76, Stockholm, Sweden.
Victoria WardSource Health Economics, 91 Wimpole Street, London, W1G 0EF1, UK.
Tom MacmillanSource Health Economics, 91 Wimpole Street, London, W1G 0EF1, UK.
Daniel ErikssonSwedish Orphan Biovitrum AB, 112 76, Stockholm, Sweden.
Silvia MappaSwedish Orphan Biovitrum AB, 112 76, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDespite recent approvals of new treatments, relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) remains challenging to treat, with limited durable responses and a high proportion of patients relapsing after two or more lines of therapy. Loncastuximab tesirine (Lonca) is a highly potent CD19-targeted antibody drug conjugate with convenient dosing for patients with third-line R/R DLBCL.

methodsIn the absence of head-to-head trials, unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) were conducted to compare the relative efficacy and safety of Lonca with polatuzumab vedotin + bendamustine and rituximab (Pola + BR).

resultsFour studies included in the MAICs were identified via systematic review and hand-searching. Lonca (LOTIS-2) was compared with three comparator studies for Pola + BR (GO29365 extension study, COTA database, Dal et al. 2023). Overall, there was no evidence of a difference in overall response and complete response (CR) rates. Despite Pola + BR demonstrating a higher CR rate in the GO29365 extension study, this did not translate into significant improvements in progression-free or overall survival. Survival analyses indicated similar efficacy between treatments across studies, with most comparisons/meta-analyses showing no statistically significant differences. Lonca had significantly lower odds of Grade 3-4 infections, any serious adverse event (SAE), and specific SAEs including febrile neutropenia, pneumonia and pyrexia. Of the safety endpoints analyzed, none indicated significant differences in favor of Pola + BR.

conclusionThese results suggest no evidence of a difference in efficacy between the two treatments and potentially more favorable safety profile for Lonca compared with Pola + BR in patients with R/R DLBCL after two or more lines of treatment.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBendamustine HydrochlorideImmunoconjugatesLymphoma, Large B-Cell, DiffuseRituximabAntibodies, MonoclonalAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedBenzodiazepinesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalAntibodies, MonoclonalAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedBendamustine HydrochlorideBenzodiazepinesImmunoconjugatesloncastuximab tesirinepolatuzumab vedotinRituximabAntibody–drug conjugatesComparative efficacyDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaLoncastuximab tesirineMatching-adjusted indirect comparisonPolatuzumab vedotin plus bendamustine and rituximabRelapsed/refractoryResponse rate

Identifiers

PMID40153222
PMCPMC12006240

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.