ArticleThe oncologist2026
Patient-reported time toxicity with bispecific antibody therapies in relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.
Article in The oncologist, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Experiences and coping strategies of time toxicity in young and middle-aged patients with lymphoma: a descriptive qualitative study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSeveral bispecific antibodies (BsAbs), including mosunetuzumab, glofitamab, and epcoritamab, are approved for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). However, real-world patient-centered data evaluating treatment-related time burden and preferences are lacking.
methodsWe conducted an online survey of 120 patients with relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma (FL; N = 60) and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL; N = 60) receiving BsAbs. Participants reported all-cause healthcare visits and time spent on cancer-related healthcare resource utilization over the past 30 days, including travel, treatment administration, recovery, and impact on daily activities. Participants also evaluated two hypothetical treatment profiles to assess preference for fixed-duration versus treat-to-progression therapy.
resultsParticipants with FL reported a mean of 2.5 healthcare visits in the past 30 days, with significantly fewer visits for mosunetuzumab versus epcoritamab (1.7 vs 3.3, respectively; P < .01). In DLBCL, the mean was 2.6 visits, with fewer visits for glofitamab versus epcoritamab (2.2 vs 3.0; P =.01). Although epcoritamab visits were shorter in FL, more frequent visits and longer recovery time resulted in significantly lower monthly time burden with mosunetuzumab versus epcoritamab (31.2 vs 61.9 hours; P < .05). Similarly, monthly time burden was also lower with glofitamab than epcoritamab in DLBCL (43.0 vs 87.7 hours; P < .05). Most participants reported little to moderate impact on daily activities. Across treatment groups, ≥92% preferred a hypothetical fixed-duration regimen over a treat-to-progression therapy.
conclusionOur real-world data, including novel aspects of time toxicity, demonstrate clinically meaningful differences in time burden associated with BsAbs and emphasize the importance of incorporating patient convenience and preference into shared decision-making in NHL.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.