The Great Debate: CAR-T-Cell Therapy Versus Bispecific Antibodies in B-Cell Lymphoma.

Background: The treatment paradigm for relapsed/refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) has undergone significant change with the advent of CD19-directed chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies and CD20 × CD3 bispecific antibodies (BsAbs). Although both approaches have shown high response rates in single-arm studies, the absence of prospective randomized head-to-head comparisons has resulted in true clinical equipoise. Methods: A narrative synthesis was conducted, incorporating pivotal and updated phase 2 and 3 trial data, real-world evidence, and published meta-analyses. Results: In the second-line setting, CAR-T therapy demonstrates superior event-free survival, progression-free survival, and overall survival compared to standard-of-care chemo-transplant regimens. In the third-line setting, a pooled meta-analysis indicates significantly higher complete response rates for CAR-T compared with BsAbs, as well as superior 12-month progression-free survival. BsAbs provide immediate availability, greater accessibility, more favorable neurotoxicity profiles, and are feasible for frail or elderly patients. Real-world data show that BsAb complete response rates are consistently lower than those observed in clinical trials, whereas CAR-T real-world effectiveness closely aligns with pivotal trial outcomes. Emerging phase 3 data on fixed-duration and monotherapy bispecific regimens suggest that a genuine, if less mature, curative fraction may also be achievable among BsAb-treated complete responders. Conclusions: CAR-T therapy remains the standard of care for fit, eligible patients with R/R LBCL in second- and third-line settings with curative intent, providing superior depth and durability of response and a growing potential for long-term cure. BsAbs constitute a critical therapeutic alternative for patients ineligible for CAR-T, those with rapidly progressive disease, frail or elderly individuals, and as bridging strategies. A patient-centered, scenario-specific clinical decision framework is recommended.