The EPCORE NHL-2 Arm 10 reported an 87% overall response rate (ORR) and 65% complete response (CR) rate, with two-thirds of patients proceeding to ASCT. How transformative are these outcomes in expanding the pool of transplant-eligible patients compared to historical salvage regimens?

At six months, 81% of responses were ongoing and 100% of patients were alive. How do you interpret these early durability signals, and what will be important to watch for as longer follow-up data mature?

The study showed strong activity both in patients who relapsed within 12 months of first-line therapy and those with later relapses. What does this suggest about the ability of epcoritamab + R-ICE to overcome adverse biology in early-relapsing patients?

The combination showed mainly low-grade CRS and no treatment discontinuations due to adverse events, but hematologic toxicities such as neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were frequent. How do you assess the risk–benefit profile of this regimen in the transplant-eligible population?

With CAR-T therapy and novel bispecifics already shifting the R/R DLBCL landscape, how might an epcoritamab + R-ICE approach fit in? Could it become a preferred bridge to transplant or compete directly with cellular therapies?

Given that many patients in routine practice are older or have comorbidities, do you see this regimen as feasible outside the clinical trial setting, or will careful patient selection be critical to replicate these results?

Epcoritamab is being tested across multiple lines of therapy. How might success in the transplant-eligible setting influence treatment sequencing decisions, especially balancing its use earlier versus reserving it for later relapse?

Given these promising data, what key steps remain for Genmab and AbbVie to establish epcoritamab + R-ICE as a standard option for ASCT-eligible R/R DLBCL patients, and what hurdles—regulatory, clinical, or competitive—do you see ahead?