Editor: Dr Marjolijn Duijvestein
Publishing Director: Paul Willers
Medical Project Manager: Dr Maria João Pires
Medical Writer: Robert van den Heuvel
Graphic Design: Caro Grafico | Grafisch Ontwerp
Printing: GVO drukkers & vormgevers B.V.
Cover Photo: iStock
Editor Conflict of Interest: Has served as an advisor for Echo Pharma and Robarts Clinical Trials, reports nonfinancial support from Dr Falk Pharma, and received speaker fees from Janssen, Merck & Co., Pfizer, Takeda and Tillotts Pharma. Advisory boards Janssen, Takeda, BMS and AbbVie.
About Medicom & Customer Services: https://medicom-education.com/index.php/about/
All rights reserved
No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law.
Copyright ©2026 Medicom Education B.V.
Disclaimer:
Our independent peer-reviewed Medicom Conference Reports are made possible by sponsoring. The ideas and opinions expressed in this journal or other associated publications do not necessarily reflect those of Medicom Medical Publishers. Although great care has been taken in compiling the content of this publication, Medicom is not responsible or liable in any way for the currency of the information, for any errors, omissions or inaccuracies in the original articles, or for any consequences arising from the content. Products mentioned in this report may not be covered by marketing authorisation in some countries. Product information, applicable in your country, should be reviewed before prescribing. The mention of any product, service, or therapy in this publication should not be construed as an endorsement of the products mentioned. It is the responsibility of the treating physician or other health care provider, relying on independent experience and knowledge of the patient, to determine drug dosages and the best treatment for the patient. Readers are advised to check the appropriate medical literature and the product information currently provided by the manufacturer of each drug to be administered to verify the dosage, method, and duration of administration, or contraindications. Readers are also encouraged to contact the manufacturer with questions about the features or limitations of any products. Medicom assumes no responsibility for any injury or damage to persons or property arising out of or related to any use of the material contained in this publication or to any errors or omissions.
The photographs included in this material are for illustrative purposes only and do not represent real patients.
In a matched set population of patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who had received ≥2 lines of treatment, axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) resulted in a significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared with tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel). However, axi-cel was associated with significantly more frequent grade ≥3 neurotoxicity compared with tisa-cel. These results could help refine specific patient sub-populations who benefit most from each type of CAR T-cell therapy.
Axi-cel and tisa-cel are autologous anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapies approved in the US and EU for adults with relapsed/refractory (R/R) DLBCL after ≥2 lines of systemic therapy. Dr Emmanuel Bachy (Hospices Civils de Lyon, France) and others conducted a propensity score-matched comparison of axi-cel and tisa-cel in a large cohort of R/R DLBCL patients treated outside of clinical trials. After a 1:1 ratio propensity score-matching, therapy outcomes were compared between 144 patients treated with axi-cel and 144 patients treated with tisa-cel. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS).
After a median follow-up of 6.6 months, OS was not significantly different between axi-cel and tisa-cel at 6 months (78% vs 70% respectively; P=0.44; see Figure). Best overall and complete response rates were significantly higher with axi-cel compared with tisa-cel (73% vs 60%; P=0.02; and 56% vs 36%; P<0.001, respectively). At 6 months, PFS was significantly longer with axi-cel than with tisa-cel (53% vs 32%; P=0.011).
Figure: Overall survival with tisa-cel versus axi-cel [1]
Axi-cel, axicabtagene ciloleucel; OS, overall survival; tisa-cel, tisagenlecleucel.
With respect to the toxicity profile, there was no significant difference in the incidence of cytokine release syndrome (CRS), but axi-cel was associated with significantly more frequent neurotoxicity (ICANS) compared with tisa-cel, namely:
- 6% vs 18.1% for grade 1–2 ICANS; and
- 4% vs 2.1% for grade ≥3 ICANS (P<0.001).
After stringent propensity score-matching on a large patient population treated with CAR T-cell therapy, axi-cel resulted in higher response rates and significantly prolonged PFS compared with tisa-cel. However, greater efficacy came at the cost of higher neurotoxicity with axi-cel.
- Bachy E, et al. A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison of Axi-Cel and Tisa-Cel for Relapsed/Refractory Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma in Real-Life: A Lysa Study from the Descar-T Registry. Abstract 92, ASH 2021 Annual Meeting, 11–14 December.