Evidence Hub

Comparison of obecabtagene autoleucel versus an external control arm in adult patients with relapsed/refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia

Topp MS, Shah BD, Jabbour E, Park JH, Shaughnessy P, Logan AC, Sandhu KS, Abedi M et al.

Leukemia, 2026

107 participants

Abstract

In the single-arm Phase Ib/II FELIX study (NCT04404660), obecabtagene autoleucel (obe-cel; CD19-directed autologous CAR T-cell therapy) demonstrated high overall remission rates (ORR) and a favorable safety profile in adults with relapsed/refractory (R/R) B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL). To contextualize results from FELIX, we compared the efficacy and safety of obe-cel with matched external control arms (ECA) derived from historical trials using propensity score matching. ECAs represented standard of care (SoC) non-CAR T-cell therapies: blinatumomab, inotuzumab ozogamicin, and conventional chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was ORR; secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS). Event-free survival (EFS) and safety were exploratory endpoints. Among the intent-to-treat population in FELIX (n = 107), obe-cel demonstrated significantly higher ORR than non-CAR T-cell therapies (67.3% vs 51.4%; odds ratio 1.9; p = 0.0257). Median OS was longer with obe-cel when censoring for hematopoietic stem cell transplant (15.1 vs 7.0 months; p = 0.0015) and without censoring (13.9 vs 7.8 months; p = 0.0430). EFS was significantly improved with obe-cel (median 9.8 vs 2.5 months; p < 0.0001). Safety profiles were comparable between groups, with similar rates of Grade ≥3 adverse events. Obe-cel offers superior remission rates and survival benefits over current SoC non-CAR T-cell therapies, with an acceptable safety profile; its use could address unmet needs in adult R/R B-ALL.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 107 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free