IBCL - 740

Anchored Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Epcoritamab, Lenalidomide, and Rituximab vs Tafasitamab, Lenalidomide, and Rituximab in Relapsed/Refractory Follicular Lymphoma: EPCORE FL-1 vs inMIND

Kim M. Linton,¹ Moshe Yair Levy,² Dai Maruyama,³ Abel Costa,⁴ Shane Gangatharan,⁵ Habte Yimer,⁶ Abualbishr Alshreef,⁷ Wenying Quan,⁸ Viktor Chirikov,⁸ Gauri Sunkersett,⁷ JP Mei,⁷ Anthony Wang,⁷ Savreet Bains Chawla,⁹ Laura Liao,⁹ Felipe Marques Goncalves,⁹ Zhijie Ding,⁹ Marcel Nijland¹⁰

¹The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, and Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; ²Texas Oncology–Tyler, US Oncology Research, Dallas, TX, USA; ³Cancer Institute Hospital, Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo, Japan; ⁴Department of Hematology, D'or Institute for Research and Education (IDOR), São Paulo, Brazil; ⁵Fiona Stanley Hospital, Murdoch, WA, Australia; ⁶Texas Oncology–Tyler, US Oncology Research, Tyler, TX, USA; ⁷AbbVie, Inc., North Chicago, IL, USA; ⁸OPEN Health, New York, NY, USA; ⁹Genmab US Inc., Plainsboro, NJ, USA; ¹⁰University Medical Center Groningen and University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands

Objective

In the absence of head-to-head clinical trials, we conducted an anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to estimate the comparative efficacy of epcoritamab + R² vs tafasitamab + R² to treat relapsed or refractory FL.

Introduction

-Follicular lymphoma (FL), the most common indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma, accounts for approximately 20%–25% of all cases and is characterized by a relapsing disease pattern, with increasing lines of therapy (LOTs)^1-3

-The ongoing phase 3 EPCORE FL-1 trial (NCT05409066) compared 12-cycle fixed-duration epcoritamab + rituximab and lenalidomide (R²) vs R² in relapsed/refractory (R/R) FL after ≥1 prior LOT⁴

-Epcoritamab + R², an off-the-shelf, subcutaneous, fixed-duration bispecific, resulted in a 79% reduction in risk of progression or death and a higher rate of complete responses (CRs) vs R² alone, with a manageable safety profile, leading to regulatory approval in R/R FL^4,5

-The efficacy and safety of tafasitamab, a humanized CD19-directed monoclonal antibody, + R² after ≥1 LOT in patients with R/R FL have been assessed in the phase 3 inMIND trial (NCT04680052), supporting its regulatory approval³

-Head-to-head clinical evidence comparing epcoritamab + R² and tafasitamab + R² in second-line or later R/R FL is currently lacking, resulting in limited evidence guiding treatment decisions in this population

Methods

Study Design: See figure in poster

Data sources

-Epcoritamab + R² IPD: obtained from EPCORE FL-1 (data cutoff: May 20254; median follow-up: 14.8 months)

-Tafasitamab + R² aggregate data: obtained from inMIND (data cutoff: February 20243; median follow-up: 14.1 months)

Matching variables (effect modifiers)

-Age ≥65 years

-Ethnicity

-FLIPI score of 3–5

-Refractory to last treatment

-Prior treatment with R²

Statistical analysis

-An anchored MAIC was conducted using R² as the common comparator arm

-Propensity score weights were applied based on key baseline characteristics to create balanced cohorts

-Weighted regression models estimated anchored ORs and 95% CIs for response outcomes

-Weighted stratified Cox proportional-hazard models estimated anchored HRs and 95% CIs for time-to-event outcomes

Efficacy outcomes

-Response outcomes: ORR and CR rate

-Time-to-event outcomes: PFS and TTNT

Results

-Prior to match-adjustment, compared with patients from inMIND (N=548), patients in the epcoritamab + R² cohort (N=243) were younger (aged ≥65 years: 36.2% vs 49.7%), had a shorter median time since initial diagnosis (4.5 vs 5.3 years), had a lower proportion of high-risk Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) scores (3–5: 41.2% vs 52.4%), had a higher proportion meeting Groupe d’Etude des Lymphomes Folliculaires (GELF) criteria (100.0% vs 82.8%), and had a comparable proportion refractory to prior anti-CD20 (42.8% vs 42.5%) (Table 1)

-After match-adjustment (effective sample size: 208 for epcoritamab + R²; 225 for R² from the EPCORE FL-1 trial), the intent-to-treat populations were well balanced (Table 1)

Table 1. Baseline characteristics between epcoritamab + R² and tafasitamab + R² (unadjusted and adjusted): See poster

Figure 1. Unadjusted and adjusted ORR (95% CI): See poster

Figure 3. MAIC of IRC-assessed PFS in epcoritamab + R² vs tafasitamab + R²: (A) full analysis and (B) treatment arms, with R² comparator curves not shown: See poster

Figure 4. MAIC of TTNT in epcoritamab + R² vs tafasitamab + R²: (A) full analysis and (B) treatment arms, with R² comparator curves not shown: See poster

Limitations

-These results should be interpreted within the context of the safety data from the respective trials

-Although the anchored MAIC adjusted for observed baseline differences between studies, residual confounding may remain

Conclusions

-Findings from this anchored MAIC showed that epcoritamab + R² was associated with significantly higher ORR and CR and improved PFS and TTNT compared with tafasitamab + R² in patients with R/R FL

-These findings position epcoritamab + R² as the new chemotherapy-free standard of care in R/R FL

Acknowledgments

Medical writing support was provided by Tulika Bhushan Bahukhandi, RPh, MS, of Peloton Advantage, LLC, an OPEN Health company, and was funded by Genmab. Genmab A/S and AbbVie funded this study and participated in the study design, research, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, reviewing, and approval of the poster. These results were previously presented at the Annual Meeting of the European Hematology Association; June 11–14, 2026; Stockholm, Sweden. All authors had access to relevant data and participated in the drafting, review, and approval of this poster. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship.

References

2. Kaseb H, et al. In: StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing; 2026.

3. Sehn LH, et al. Lancet. 2026;407(10524):133-146.

4. Falchi L, et al. Lancet. 2026;407(10524):161-173.

5. Falchi L, et al. Blood. 2025;146(22):2629-2640.