Document resource
Background and Importance The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the European Haematology Association (EHA) recently developed and validated the Magnitude of Clinical Benefit (BC) Scale in Haematology (MCBS:H), a standardised, objective, and reproducible tool that quantifies the expected BC of treatments for haematologic malignancies.Aim and Objectives To assess the BC of recently approved DLBCL therapies and compare it with current therapeutic positioning.Material and Methods Observational, retrospective study (March 2025) evaluating studies supporting recent DLBCL therapy approvals using ESMO-MCBS:H. Variables: therapy, indication, funding, BC assessment, trial, study type, form, efficacy, safety, QoL, and score. Sources: PubMed and Ministry of Health Therapeutic Positioning Reports.Results Evaluated: Therapy Indication (line) Funding-Status Clinical-Trial Type of Form (ESMO-MCBS:H) Interested Outcomes BC Assessment Score Axicabtagene CiloleucelSecondYesZUMA-7:Randomised/phase III/multicentre/open-label/controlled vs.ASCT2A (improved OS)Improved mPFS at 13 mo (HR=0.51); significant OS improvement at ≥16.1 mo (FU 47.2 mo); no QoL adjustment*Demonstrated superiority4TisagenlecleucelThird/higherYesC2201:Phase II/multicentre/open-label/single-arm3ORR=44.6%; RD≥10 mo; QoL improved at 3 mo (secondary endpoint)Without evidence of improved ORR vs. historical cohorts4Polatuzumab-Vedotin/Rituximab/BendamustineSecond(not eligible-ASCT)YesGO29365:Multicentre/open-label/phase Ib/II vs.Rituximab/bendamustine2A (OS improvement)Improved mPFS by 5.8 mo(HR=0.36); no QoL adjustment*In non-candidates for ASCT/CAR-T4Polatuzumab-Vedotin/R-CHPFirstNotGO39942(POLARIX):Phase III/multicentre/randomised/double-blind vs.R-CHOP2B (OS diff. not significant)PFS ≥5% increase; HR=0.73; no QoL adjustment**Results do not support substitution for vincristine1Tafasitamab/LenalidomideSecond(not eligible-ASCT)YesMOR208C203(L-MIND):Phase II/open-label/single-arm3ORR=56.8%; median RD=34.3 mo; no QoL adjustment***With certain limitations; alternative for ineligible patients3EpcoritamabThird/higherYesGCT3013-01(EPCORE-NHL1):Open-label/multicentre/phase I/II/single-arm3ORR=61.9%; median RD=15.5 mo; no QoL adjustment***With limitations; convenient alternative to IV therapies3Loncastuximab-TesirineThird/higherNotLOTIS-2:Phase II, multicentre, open-label, single-arm3ORR=48.3%; median RD=13.37 mo; no QoL adjustment***For patients ineligible/refractory CAR-T3* NO reduction in grade 3-4 toxicity (QoL impact).** NO: Only improved PFS or increased toxicity/QoL improvement/Early crossover/PFS improvement sustained for 3 years.*** NO: QoL improvement; Phase IV results/≥30% grade 3-4 toxicities (affecting well-being).Conclusion and Relevance The ESMO-MCBS: H proved a reliable and objective tool, validating BC assessments and supporting clinical decisions. CAR-T therapies and Polatuzumab-R/Bendamustine showed substantial benefit, unlike Polatuzumab-R-CHP, consistent with its non-funding. The scale is useful but requires critical appraisal of study design.Conflict of Interest No conflict of interest