Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 26, 2026

In Vitro Methods for Comparing Target Binding and CDC Induction Between Therapeutic Antibodies: Applications in Biosimilarity Analysis
Published on: May 4, 2017
Adjusted Indirect Comparison Between Epcoritamab-R2 and Tafasitamab-R2 in Relapse/Refractory Follicular Lymphoma
Leonidas Benetatos1, Elisavet Apostolidou1, Vasileios Georgoulis1
1Department of Ηematology, Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece.
Abstract:
Treatment of relapsed refractory follicular lymphoma (R/R FL) still remains challenging. Several strategies have been used against R/R FL. Recently, two chemotherapy-free regimens have gained space, epcoritamab-lenalidomide-rituximab (Epco-R2) and tafasitamab-lenalidomide-rituximab (Tafa-R2). Herein, we performed an indirect trial comparison (ITC) between the two regimens using the Bucher method as they both have the common comparator arm R2. The ITC between the two study arms showed an overall response rate (ORR; p = 0.020), and complete remission rates (CR; p < 0.0001), in favor of Epco-R2. Analysis regarding time to next treatment (TTNT) interval also favored Epco-R2 (p = 0.0011). The ITC in the progression free survival (PFS) context showed the anchored comparison favored Epco-R2 over Tafa-R2 [HR 0.51 (95% CI 0.31-0.86)], p = 0.011, a finding more pronounced in patients with progression of disease within 24 months (POD24) negativity. Regarding the safety profile, Epco-R2 was associated with more hematological toxicity and infections, whereas, Tafa-R2 was associated with more COVID-19 infections probably reflecting the pandemic era enrollment timing. In conclusion, Epco-R2 is more effective in terms of treatment outcomes, but comes with greater toxicity. Tafa-R2 seems more suitable for patients with limited bone marrow reserves, patients who wish to avoid hospitalization, patients at a higher risk for cytokine release syndrome, and patients with high-risk infection vulnerability. Finally, this is not a direct comparison of two therapeutic regimens and the results should be cautiously interpreted. Treatment choice should be decided on a case-by-case scenario based on several different variables.
