User login
Vertebral Fractures and Myeloma: Link Is Questionable
The findings suggest that evaluation for underlying MM — as recommended in some clinical guidelines — may be unwarranted in the absence of symptoms or other clinical findings leading to suspicion of underlying MM, Rasmus Rønnemoes, MD, reported during a poster session at the annual American Society of Hematology conference.
“Some guidelines say to evaluate patients with vertebral fractures, including measuring serum M-protein and free light chains, and others say to evaluate only if there is an indication — but without specifying what an indication is,” Rønnemoes, of the Danish Red Blood Cell Center, Copenhagen University Hospital — Rigshospitalet, Denmark, said in an interview.
To assess the association between vertebral fractures and MM, he and his colleagues studied 9065 individuals from the Danish general population, aged 33-94 years (median, 62 years) who were part of the Copenhagen General Population Study and who had attended a health examination and underwent a CT scan as part of the study. Overall, 1574 (17.4%) had one or more incidentally discovered vertebral fracture on the CT scan, and of those, 875 (9.7%) had a grade 1 fracture as the highest grade and 699 (7.7%) had grade 2-3 fractures.
During a median prospective follow-up of 5.5 years after the scan, 13 were diagnosed with myeloma.
“We did find an increased relative risk of myeloma in these patients, which we thought was quite interesting, but the absolute risk was quite modest,” Rønnemoes said.
The absolute 5-year risk for MM was 0.07% and 0.10% in women and men without vertebral fractures, respectively, and the risk for those with fractures was 0.17% and 0.24% in women and men with grade 1 fractures, respectively, and 0.43% and 0.63% in women and men with grade 2-3 fractures, respectively.
A case-cohort study based on more than 56,000 individuals from the UK Biobank cohort who had undergone a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scan as part of that study validated the findings in the Danish population: At median follow-up of 4 years, 49 patients in the validation cohort were diagnosed with myeloma, and the absolute 5-year risk for myeloma was 0.06% and 0.12% in women and men with grade 1 fractures, respectively, and 0.14% and 0.26% in women and men with grade 2-3 fractures, respectively.
Given the apparently modest absolute risk for MM in patients with incidentally discovered fractures in the absence of strong indications or risk, treatment guidelines should consider the potential harms associated with additional work up and a monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance diagnosis, Rønnemoes said.
Such a diagnosis can lead to psychological distress in individuals who may never develop malignant disease, he noted.
“We just hope to bring more value to the guidelines by identifying who should be evaluated,” he said, adding that additional study — perhaps looking more closely at whether only the more severe fractures should prompt additional evaluation — is warranted.
Rønnemoes reported no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The findings suggest that evaluation for underlying MM — as recommended in some clinical guidelines — may be unwarranted in the absence of symptoms or other clinical findings leading to suspicion of underlying MM, Rasmus Rønnemoes, MD, reported during a poster session at the annual American Society of Hematology conference.
“Some guidelines say to evaluate patients with vertebral fractures, including measuring serum M-protein and free light chains, and others say to evaluate only if there is an indication — but without specifying what an indication is,” Rønnemoes, of the Danish Red Blood Cell Center, Copenhagen University Hospital — Rigshospitalet, Denmark, said in an interview.
To assess the association between vertebral fractures and MM, he and his colleagues studied 9065 individuals from the Danish general population, aged 33-94 years (median, 62 years) who were part of the Copenhagen General Population Study and who had attended a health examination and underwent a CT scan as part of the study. Overall, 1574 (17.4%) had one or more incidentally discovered vertebral fracture on the CT scan, and of those, 875 (9.7%) had a grade 1 fracture as the highest grade and 699 (7.7%) had grade 2-3 fractures.
During a median prospective follow-up of 5.5 years after the scan, 13 were diagnosed with myeloma.
“We did find an increased relative risk of myeloma in these patients, which we thought was quite interesting, but the absolute risk was quite modest,” Rønnemoes said.
The absolute 5-year risk for MM was 0.07% and 0.10% in women and men without vertebral fractures, respectively, and the risk for those with fractures was 0.17% and 0.24% in women and men with grade 1 fractures, respectively, and 0.43% and 0.63% in women and men with grade 2-3 fractures, respectively.
A case-cohort study based on more than 56,000 individuals from the UK Biobank cohort who had undergone a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scan as part of that study validated the findings in the Danish population: At median follow-up of 4 years, 49 patients in the validation cohort were diagnosed with myeloma, and the absolute 5-year risk for myeloma was 0.06% and 0.12% in women and men with grade 1 fractures, respectively, and 0.14% and 0.26% in women and men with grade 2-3 fractures, respectively.
Given the apparently modest absolute risk for MM in patients with incidentally discovered fractures in the absence of strong indications or risk, treatment guidelines should consider the potential harms associated with additional work up and a monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance diagnosis, Rønnemoes said.
Such a diagnosis can lead to psychological distress in individuals who may never develop malignant disease, he noted.
“We just hope to bring more value to the guidelines by identifying who should be evaluated,” he said, adding that additional study — perhaps looking more closely at whether only the more severe fractures should prompt additional evaluation — is warranted.
Rønnemoes reported no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The findings suggest that evaluation for underlying MM — as recommended in some clinical guidelines — may be unwarranted in the absence of symptoms or other clinical findings leading to suspicion of underlying MM, Rasmus Rønnemoes, MD, reported during a poster session at the annual American Society of Hematology conference.
“Some guidelines say to evaluate patients with vertebral fractures, including measuring serum M-protein and free light chains, and others say to evaluate only if there is an indication — but without specifying what an indication is,” Rønnemoes, of the Danish Red Blood Cell Center, Copenhagen University Hospital — Rigshospitalet, Denmark, said in an interview.
To assess the association between vertebral fractures and MM, he and his colleagues studied 9065 individuals from the Danish general population, aged 33-94 years (median, 62 years) who were part of the Copenhagen General Population Study and who had attended a health examination and underwent a CT scan as part of the study. Overall, 1574 (17.4%) had one or more incidentally discovered vertebral fracture on the CT scan, and of those, 875 (9.7%) had a grade 1 fracture as the highest grade and 699 (7.7%) had grade 2-3 fractures.
During a median prospective follow-up of 5.5 years after the scan, 13 were diagnosed with myeloma.
“We did find an increased relative risk of myeloma in these patients, which we thought was quite interesting, but the absolute risk was quite modest,” Rønnemoes said.
The absolute 5-year risk for MM was 0.07% and 0.10% in women and men without vertebral fractures, respectively, and the risk for those with fractures was 0.17% and 0.24% in women and men with grade 1 fractures, respectively, and 0.43% and 0.63% in women and men with grade 2-3 fractures, respectively.
A case-cohort study based on more than 56,000 individuals from the UK Biobank cohort who had undergone a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scan as part of that study validated the findings in the Danish population: At median follow-up of 4 years, 49 patients in the validation cohort were diagnosed with myeloma, and the absolute 5-year risk for myeloma was 0.06% and 0.12% in women and men with grade 1 fractures, respectively, and 0.14% and 0.26% in women and men with grade 2-3 fractures, respectively.
Given the apparently modest absolute risk for MM in patients with incidentally discovered fractures in the absence of strong indications or risk, treatment guidelines should consider the potential harms associated with additional work up and a monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance diagnosis, Rønnemoes said.
Such a diagnosis can lead to psychological distress in individuals who may never develop malignant disease, he noted.
“We just hope to bring more value to the guidelines by identifying who should be evaluated,” he said, adding that additional study — perhaps looking more closely at whether only the more severe fractures should prompt additional evaluation — is warranted.
Rønnemoes reported no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASH 2024
24-Hour Urine Testing in Multiple Myeloma: Time to Stop?
Overall, evaluating patients’ responses using urine-free and traditional criteria led to nearly identical assessments. When comparing the two criteria, only 7 of 645 patients evaluated had discordant results.
The findings, presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting, add weight to the push to drop the requirement to perform routine urine tests from International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) response criteria for multiple myeloma, said the study’s lead author, Rahul Banerjee, MD, from Fred Hutch Cancer Center, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle.
“International guidelines for multiple myeloma, which haven’t been updated in almost a decade, currently recommend these refrigerated 24-hour urine assessments, which are cumbersome for patients and can create substantial disparities,” Banerjee said in an interview.
“The international community is actually in the midst of updating its guidelines (I am part of this effort), and our work will hopefully help lead the way for future guidelines that de-emphasize the need for 24-hour urine testing to only a few rare scenarios, such as AL amyloidosis,” Banerjee added.
Urine tests can help detect the presence of abnormal proteins, which can indicate the level of myeloma tumor burden. Performing these tests routinely can help physicians monitor the effectiveness of patients’ treatment in practice and clinical trials.
Some recent data, however, suggest that dropping urine testing from the response criteria would change the response assessment in fewer than 5% of patients. Still, it’s not clear how urine-free criteria would impact assessments of progression free survival.
In the current study, Banerjee and colleagues performed a secondary analysis of the STaMINA trial. In the original trial, patients were randomized to lenalidomide maintenance, tandem autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation followed by lenalidomide maintenance, or consolidation therapy (lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone) followed by lenalidomide maintenance until disease progression.
The secondary analysis included 645 patients from the original trial who were evaluable 56 days following autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation. The analysis looked at patients across all groups, but excluded those with progressive disease, and compared patients’ responses using traditional IMWG criteria, which includes 24-hour urine assessments, and urine-free criteria. Response measurements included complete response, very good partial response, partial response, and stable disease.
Patients were a median age of 56 years, 41% were female, 17% were Black, and 7% were Hispanic; 26% had light-chain only disease. About half (49%) had received lenalidomide alone, 28% had received post-autologous stem cell transplantation consolidation followed by lenalidomide, and 24% had received tandem transplantation followed by lenalidomide.
The analysis showed that “urine-free response criteria worked just fine in terms of their prognostic value,” Banerjee said while presenting the findings.
Specifically, the complete response rate was 29.4% using the traditional criteria vs 29.7% using the urine-free criteria. The very good partial response rate was 37.0% with the traditional approach vs 36.6% with the urine-free approach. The partial response rate was 30.7% for both and the stable disease rate was 3.0% for both.
Achieving a complete response based on the urine-free criteria was highly prognostic for progression-free survival (P = .005) while achieving a very good partial response by either criterion was borderline prognostic for progression-free survival (P = .102).
Only 1.1% of patients — seven patients altogether — had discordant responses between traditional and urine-free response criteria, Banerjee noted. One patient, for instance, was downgraded from a very good partial response with traditional criteria to a partial response with urine-free criteria “because current response criteria rate urine [as] more important than serum-free light chains,” Banerjee explained. Two other patients who met all other stringent criteria for a complete response but still had urine paraprotein at Day 56 were classified as having a very good partial response using traditional criteria but as a complete response with the urine-free criteria.
The other four patients with discordant results were the most important, Banerjee said. These patients were missing urine protein electrophoresis values, which made them non-evaluable using traditional criteria, but became evaluable when using urine-free criteria. “This is, I think, the bane of our existence, right? We ask our patients to put their blood, soul, sweat, and tears into being in a clinical trial, and then they’re not evaluable,” he said.
Overall, these results strongly support the de-emphasis of 24-hour urine requirements in updated IMWG response criteria, said Banerjee. However, he noted, 24-hour urine testing still has a very important place in the screening process and in patients with monoclonal gammopathy of renal significance or AL amyloidosis.
“This study provides reassurance to those of us already not repeating urine tests that urine testing is unnecessary for tracking responses,” said Manni Mohyuddin, MD, from the Multiple Myeloma Program at Huntsman Cancer Institute and assistant professor at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. “These assessments aren’t done consistently in practice outside of trials anyway, and I hope that this study will lead to a formal change in criteria and the omission of urine assessments in clinical trials.”
Funding for the study was provided by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Cancer Institute; Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology; ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group; and SWOG; and contributions were provided by Celgene and Millennium Pharmaceuticals. Banerjee has reported consulting for Adaptive Biotechnologies, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Caribou Biosciences, Genentech, GSK, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, Karyopharm, Legend Biotech, Pfizer, Sanofi, and SparkCures, and receiving research funding from AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pack Health, Prothena, and Sanofi. Mohyuddin has disclosed no personal payments and no consultation for industry. His institution has received research funding from Janssen for his role as a principal investigator on a trial.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Overall, evaluating patients’ responses using urine-free and traditional criteria led to nearly identical assessments. When comparing the two criteria, only 7 of 645 patients evaluated had discordant results.
The findings, presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting, add weight to the push to drop the requirement to perform routine urine tests from International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) response criteria for multiple myeloma, said the study’s lead author, Rahul Banerjee, MD, from Fred Hutch Cancer Center, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle.
“International guidelines for multiple myeloma, which haven’t been updated in almost a decade, currently recommend these refrigerated 24-hour urine assessments, which are cumbersome for patients and can create substantial disparities,” Banerjee said in an interview.
“The international community is actually in the midst of updating its guidelines (I am part of this effort), and our work will hopefully help lead the way for future guidelines that de-emphasize the need for 24-hour urine testing to only a few rare scenarios, such as AL amyloidosis,” Banerjee added.
Urine tests can help detect the presence of abnormal proteins, which can indicate the level of myeloma tumor burden. Performing these tests routinely can help physicians monitor the effectiveness of patients’ treatment in practice and clinical trials.
Some recent data, however, suggest that dropping urine testing from the response criteria would change the response assessment in fewer than 5% of patients. Still, it’s not clear how urine-free criteria would impact assessments of progression free survival.
In the current study, Banerjee and colleagues performed a secondary analysis of the STaMINA trial. In the original trial, patients were randomized to lenalidomide maintenance, tandem autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation followed by lenalidomide maintenance, or consolidation therapy (lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone) followed by lenalidomide maintenance until disease progression.
The secondary analysis included 645 patients from the original trial who were evaluable 56 days following autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation. The analysis looked at patients across all groups, but excluded those with progressive disease, and compared patients’ responses using traditional IMWG criteria, which includes 24-hour urine assessments, and urine-free criteria. Response measurements included complete response, very good partial response, partial response, and stable disease.
Patients were a median age of 56 years, 41% were female, 17% were Black, and 7% were Hispanic; 26% had light-chain only disease. About half (49%) had received lenalidomide alone, 28% had received post-autologous stem cell transplantation consolidation followed by lenalidomide, and 24% had received tandem transplantation followed by lenalidomide.
The analysis showed that “urine-free response criteria worked just fine in terms of their prognostic value,” Banerjee said while presenting the findings.
Specifically, the complete response rate was 29.4% using the traditional criteria vs 29.7% using the urine-free criteria. The very good partial response rate was 37.0% with the traditional approach vs 36.6% with the urine-free approach. The partial response rate was 30.7% for both and the stable disease rate was 3.0% for both.
Achieving a complete response based on the urine-free criteria was highly prognostic for progression-free survival (P = .005) while achieving a very good partial response by either criterion was borderline prognostic for progression-free survival (P = .102).
Only 1.1% of patients — seven patients altogether — had discordant responses between traditional and urine-free response criteria, Banerjee noted. One patient, for instance, was downgraded from a very good partial response with traditional criteria to a partial response with urine-free criteria “because current response criteria rate urine [as] more important than serum-free light chains,” Banerjee explained. Two other patients who met all other stringent criteria for a complete response but still had urine paraprotein at Day 56 were classified as having a very good partial response using traditional criteria but as a complete response with the urine-free criteria.
The other four patients with discordant results were the most important, Banerjee said. These patients were missing urine protein electrophoresis values, which made them non-evaluable using traditional criteria, but became evaluable when using urine-free criteria. “This is, I think, the bane of our existence, right? We ask our patients to put their blood, soul, sweat, and tears into being in a clinical trial, and then they’re not evaluable,” he said.
Overall, these results strongly support the de-emphasis of 24-hour urine requirements in updated IMWG response criteria, said Banerjee. However, he noted, 24-hour urine testing still has a very important place in the screening process and in patients with monoclonal gammopathy of renal significance or AL amyloidosis.
“This study provides reassurance to those of us already not repeating urine tests that urine testing is unnecessary for tracking responses,” said Manni Mohyuddin, MD, from the Multiple Myeloma Program at Huntsman Cancer Institute and assistant professor at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. “These assessments aren’t done consistently in practice outside of trials anyway, and I hope that this study will lead to a formal change in criteria and the omission of urine assessments in clinical trials.”
Funding for the study was provided by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Cancer Institute; Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology; ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group; and SWOG; and contributions were provided by Celgene and Millennium Pharmaceuticals. Banerjee has reported consulting for Adaptive Biotechnologies, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Caribou Biosciences, Genentech, GSK, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, Karyopharm, Legend Biotech, Pfizer, Sanofi, and SparkCures, and receiving research funding from AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pack Health, Prothena, and Sanofi. Mohyuddin has disclosed no personal payments and no consultation for industry. His institution has received research funding from Janssen for his role as a principal investigator on a trial.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Overall, evaluating patients’ responses using urine-free and traditional criteria led to nearly identical assessments. When comparing the two criteria, only 7 of 645 patients evaluated had discordant results.
The findings, presented at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) 2024 Annual Meeting, add weight to the push to drop the requirement to perform routine urine tests from International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) response criteria for multiple myeloma, said the study’s lead author, Rahul Banerjee, MD, from Fred Hutch Cancer Center, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle.
“International guidelines for multiple myeloma, which haven’t been updated in almost a decade, currently recommend these refrigerated 24-hour urine assessments, which are cumbersome for patients and can create substantial disparities,” Banerjee said in an interview.
“The international community is actually in the midst of updating its guidelines (I am part of this effort), and our work will hopefully help lead the way for future guidelines that de-emphasize the need for 24-hour urine testing to only a few rare scenarios, such as AL amyloidosis,” Banerjee added.
Urine tests can help detect the presence of abnormal proteins, which can indicate the level of myeloma tumor burden. Performing these tests routinely can help physicians monitor the effectiveness of patients’ treatment in practice and clinical trials.
Some recent data, however, suggest that dropping urine testing from the response criteria would change the response assessment in fewer than 5% of patients. Still, it’s not clear how urine-free criteria would impact assessments of progression free survival.
In the current study, Banerjee and colleagues performed a secondary analysis of the STaMINA trial. In the original trial, patients were randomized to lenalidomide maintenance, tandem autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation followed by lenalidomide maintenance, or consolidation therapy (lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone) followed by lenalidomide maintenance until disease progression.
The secondary analysis included 645 patients from the original trial who were evaluable 56 days following autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation. The analysis looked at patients across all groups, but excluded those with progressive disease, and compared patients’ responses using traditional IMWG criteria, which includes 24-hour urine assessments, and urine-free criteria. Response measurements included complete response, very good partial response, partial response, and stable disease.
Patients were a median age of 56 years, 41% were female, 17% were Black, and 7% were Hispanic; 26% had light-chain only disease. About half (49%) had received lenalidomide alone, 28% had received post-autologous stem cell transplantation consolidation followed by lenalidomide, and 24% had received tandem transplantation followed by lenalidomide.
The analysis showed that “urine-free response criteria worked just fine in terms of their prognostic value,” Banerjee said while presenting the findings.
Specifically, the complete response rate was 29.4% using the traditional criteria vs 29.7% using the urine-free criteria. The very good partial response rate was 37.0% with the traditional approach vs 36.6% with the urine-free approach. The partial response rate was 30.7% for both and the stable disease rate was 3.0% for both.
Achieving a complete response based on the urine-free criteria was highly prognostic for progression-free survival (P = .005) while achieving a very good partial response by either criterion was borderline prognostic for progression-free survival (P = .102).
Only 1.1% of patients — seven patients altogether — had discordant responses between traditional and urine-free response criteria, Banerjee noted. One patient, for instance, was downgraded from a very good partial response with traditional criteria to a partial response with urine-free criteria “because current response criteria rate urine [as] more important than serum-free light chains,” Banerjee explained. Two other patients who met all other stringent criteria for a complete response but still had urine paraprotein at Day 56 were classified as having a very good partial response using traditional criteria but as a complete response with the urine-free criteria.
The other four patients with discordant results were the most important, Banerjee said. These patients were missing urine protein electrophoresis values, which made them non-evaluable using traditional criteria, but became evaluable when using urine-free criteria. “This is, I think, the bane of our existence, right? We ask our patients to put their blood, soul, sweat, and tears into being in a clinical trial, and then they’re not evaluable,” he said.
Overall, these results strongly support the de-emphasis of 24-hour urine requirements in updated IMWG response criteria, said Banerjee. However, he noted, 24-hour urine testing still has a very important place in the screening process and in patients with monoclonal gammopathy of renal significance or AL amyloidosis.
“This study provides reassurance to those of us already not repeating urine tests that urine testing is unnecessary for tracking responses,” said Manni Mohyuddin, MD, from the Multiple Myeloma Program at Huntsman Cancer Institute and assistant professor at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City. “These assessments aren’t done consistently in practice outside of trials anyway, and I hope that this study will lead to a formal change in criteria and the omission of urine assessments in clinical trials.”
Funding for the study was provided by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Cancer Institute; Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology; ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group; and SWOG; and contributions were provided by Celgene and Millennium Pharmaceuticals. Banerjee has reported consulting for Adaptive Biotechnologies, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Caribou Biosciences, Genentech, GSK, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, Karyopharm, Legend Biotech, Pfizer, Sanofi, and SparkCures, and receiving research funding from AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pack Health, Prothena, and Sanofi. Mohyuddin has disclosed no personal payments and no consultation for industry. His institution has received research funding from Janssen for his role as a principal investigator on a trial.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASH 2024
IVIG Prophylaxis in Multiple Myeloma Cuts Infections, Boosts Survival
Among 225 consecutive patients who received at least one treatment for relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma, those who received IVIG prophylaxis experienced a significantly longer duration of infection-free survival and an almost threefold longer median overall survival, compared with patients who did not receive IVIG prophylaxis.
IVIG supplementation has been shown to prevent severe infections in patients with multiple myeloma, but evidence on the best time to initiate IVIG prophylaxis among those receiving teclistamab remains less clear.
“Our institutional practice is to start IVIG about cycle 2 of therapy, which ended up being around 39 days,” but a key takeaway from the current findings is to “start IVIG within 30 days,” said lead investigator Heloise Cheruvalath, BA, a medical student at Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, who presented the findings.
The 225 patients included in the study had received at least one dose of standard-of-care teclistamab or an investigational B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)–directed bispecific antibody (bsAb). IVIG was given as prophylaxis to 92 patients (41%) in the primary arm. The remaining 133 patients (59%) did not receive IVIG prophylaxis, but 29% received IVIG after a documented infection.
In total, there were 288 infections in 136 patients, and about 61% of infections required hospitalization. Median time to infection was 97 days, with the 12-month cumulative incidence of all-grade infections reaching 73% and the incidence of grade 3 or higher infections totaling 53%. Respiratory tract infections were the most common infection type, with COVID-19 accounting for 11% of cases, Cheruvalath noted.
Comparing patients who did and did not receive IVIG prophylaxis, median infection-free survival was significantly longer in the prophylaxis group — a median of 7.7 months vs 3 months — as was grade 3 or higher infection-free survival — a median of 14 months vs 7.5 months.
IVIG prophylaxis also led to a higher rate of 2-year progression free survival in the prophylaxis vs nonprophylaxis group — at 38% vs 32% — as well as longer median progression-free survival — at 15 months vs 8 months.
After multivariate analysis, IVIG prophylaxis was no longer significantly associated with improved progression-free survival.
However, median overall survival did remain significantly better in the IVIG prophylaxis than the nonprophylaxis group after multivariate analysis — 44 months vs 16 months. The presence of high-risk and extramedullary disease was independently associated with worse overall survival.
The effects of IVIG prophylaxis were stronger for bacterial infections at earlier (30 days or sooner) vs later (31 days or later) time points, but timing of IVIG therapy did not appear to affect the incidence of viral infections.
A study limitation was lack of randomization; IVIG prophylaxis was given at the physician’s discretion. In addition, multiple myeloma treatment was not standardized, with 15% of IVIG patients and 38% of non-IVIG patients receiving investigational BCMA bsAB.
“However, the majority of those who received primary IVIG prophylaxis were treated with standard-of-care teclistamab, making our results generalizable to current clinical practice,” Cheruvalath said.
Rahul Banerjee, MD, who was not involved with the research, noted he has already started providing routine IVIG prophylaxis based on earlier research from this group. “Before I did, my patients would often get very rare infections requiring protracted courses of antibiotics,” Banerjee, from Fred Hutch Cancer Center, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, said in an interview. “Moving to IVIG before the infections start makes much more sense.”
Banerjee also commented that, in general, “the myeloma field has been moving from IV treatments to subcutaneous treatments to lower ‘time toxicity’ and IVIG is a notable exception to that trend, but perhaps it won’t be this way forever.”
Many patients with rheumatologic conditions receive subcutaneous immunoglobulin, in some cases, with kits they can self-administer at home, Banerjee said, and “I know some groups are starting to work on moving subcutaneous immunoglobulin to the oncologic setting.”
Funding was provided by the Advancing Healthier Wisconsin Endowment. Cheruvalath has reported no relevant disclosures. Banerjee has reported consulting for Adaptive Biotechnologies, Bristol Myers Squibb, Caribou Biosciences, Genentech, GSK, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, Karyopharm, Legend Biotech, Pfizer, Sanofi, and SparkCures; and receiving research funding from AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pack Health, Prothena, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Among 225 consecutive patients who received at least one treatment for relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma, those who received IVIG prophylaxis experienced a significantly longer duration of infection-free survival and an almost threefold longer median overall survival, compared with patients who did not receive IVIG prophylaxis.
IVIG supplementation has been shown to prevent severe infections in patients with multiple myeloma, but evidence on the best time to initiate IVIG prophylaxis among those receiving teclistamab remains less clear.
“Our institutional practice is to start IVIG about cycle 2 of therapy, which ended up being around 39 days,” but a key takeaway from the current findings is to “start IVIG within 30 days,” said lead investigator Heloise Cheruvalath, BA, a medical student at Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, who presented the findings.
The 225 patients included in the study had received at least one dose of standard-of-care teclistamab or an investigational B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)–directed bispecific antibody (bsAb). IVIG was given as prophylaxis to 92 patients (41%) in the primary arm. The remaining 133 patients (59%) did not receive IVIG prophylaxis, but 29% received IVIG after a documented infection.
In total, there were 288 infections in 136 patients, and about 61% of infections required hospitalization. Median time to infection was 97 days, with the 12-month cumulative incidence of all-grade infections reaching 73% and the incidence of grade 3 or higher infections totaling 53%. Respiratory tract infections were the most common infection type, with COVID-19 accounting for 11% of cases, Cheruvalath noted.
Comparing patients who did and did not receive IVIG prophylaxis, median infection-free survival was significantly longer in the prophylaxis group — a median of 7.7 months vs 3 months — as was grade 3 or higher infection-free survival — a median of 14 months vs 7.5 months.
IVIG prophylaxis also led to a higher rate of 2-year progression free survival in the prophylaxis vs nonprophylaxis group — at 38% vs 32% — as well as longer median progression-free survival — at 15 months vs 8 months.
After multivariate analysis, IVIG prophylaxis was no longer significantly associated with improved progression-free survival.
However, median overall survival did remain significantly better in the IVIG prophylaxis than the nonprophylaxis group after multivariate analysis — 44 months vs 16 months. The presence of high-risk and extramedullary disease was independently associated with worse overall survival.
The effects of IVIG prophylaxis were stronger for bacterial infections at earlier (30 days or sooner) vs later (31 days or later) time points, but timing of IVIG therapy did not appear to affect the incidence of viral infections.
A study limitation was lack of randomization; IVIG prophylaxis was given at the physician’s discretion. In addition, multiple myeloma treatment was not standardized, with 15% of IVIG patients and 38% of non-IVIG patients receiving investigational BCMA bsAB.
“However, the majority of those who received primary IVIG prophylaxis were treated with standard-of-care teclistamab, making our results generalizable to current clinical practice,” Cheruvalath said.
Rahul Banerjee, MD, who was not involved with the research, noted he has already started providing routine IVIG prophylaxis based on earlier research from this group. “Before I did, my patients would often get very rare infections requiring protracted courses of antibiotics,” Banerjee, from Fred Hutch Cancer Center, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, said in an interview. “Moving to IVIG before the infections start makes much more sense.”
Banerjee also commented that, in general, “the myeloma field has been moving from IV treatments to subcutaneous treatments to lower ‘time toxicity’ and IVIG is a notable exception to that trend, but perhaps it won’t be this way forever.”
Many patients with rheumatologic conditions receive subcutaneous immunoglobulin, in some cases, with kits they can self-administer at home, Banerjee said, and “I know some groups are starting to work on moving subcutaneous immunoglobulin to the oncologic setting.”
Funding was provided by the Advancing Healthier Wisconsin Endowment. Cheruvalath has reported no relevant disclosures. Banerjee has reported consulting for Adaptive Biotechnologies, Bristol Myers Squibb, Caribou Biosciences, Genentech, GSK, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, Karyopharm, Legend Biotech, Pfizer, Sanofi, and SparkCures; and receiving research funding from AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pack Health, Prothena, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Among 225 consecutive patients who received at least one treatment for relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma, those who received IVIG prophylaxis experienced a significantly longer duration of infection-free survival and an almost threefold longer median overall survival, compared with patients who did not receive IVIG prophylaxis.
IVIG supplementation has been shown to prevent severe infections in patients with multiple myeloma, but evidence on the best time to initiate IVIG prophylaxis among those receiving teclistamab remains less clear.
“Our institutional practice is to start IVIG about cycle 2 of therapy, which ended up being around 39 days,” but a key takeaway from the current findings is to “start IVIG within 30 days,” said lead investigator Heloise Cheruvalath, BA, a medical student at Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, who presented the findings.
The 225 patients included in the study had received at least one dose of standard-of-care teclistamab or an investigational B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)–directed bispecific antibody (bsAb). IVIG was given as prophylaxis to 92 patients (41%) in the primary arm. The remaining 133 patients (59%) did not receive IVIG prophylaxis, but 29% received IVIG after a documented infection.
In total, there were 288 infections in 136 patients, and about 61% of infections required hospitalization. Median time to infection was 97 days, with the 12-month cumulative incidence of all-grade infections reaching 73% and the incidence of grade 3 or higher infections totaling 53%. Respiratory tract infections were the most common infection type, with COVID-19 accounting for 11% of cases, Cheruvalath noted.
Comparing patients who did and did not receive IVIG prophylaxis, median infection-free survival was significantly longer in the prophylaxis group — a median of 7.7 months vs 3 months — as was grade 3 or higher infection-free survival — a median of 14 months vs 7.5 months.
IVIG prophylaxis also led to a higher rate of 2-year progression free survival in the prophylaxis vs nonprophylaxis group — at 38% vs 32% — as well as longer median progression-free survival — at 15 months vs 8 months.
After multivariate analysis, IVIG prophylaxis was no longer significantly associated with improved progression-free survival.
However, median overall survival did remain significantly better in the IVIG prophylaxis than the nonprophylaxis group after multivariate analysis — 44 months vs 16 months. The presence of high-risk and extramedullary disease was independently associated with worse overall survival.
The effects of IVIG prophylaxis were stronger for bacterial infections at earlier (30 days or sooner) vs later (31 days or later) time points, but timing of IVIG therapy did not appear to affect the incidence of viral infections.
A study limitation was lack of randomization; IVIG prophylaxis was given at the physician’s discretion. In addition, multiple myeloma treatment was not standardized, with 15% of IVIG patients and 38% of non-IVIG patients receiving investigational BCMA bsAB.
“However, the majority of those who received primary IVIG prophylaxis were treated with standard-of-care teclistamab, making our results generalizable to current clinical practice,” Cheruvalath said.
Rahul Banerjee, MD, who was not involved with the research, noted he has already started providing routine IVIG prophylaxis based on earlier research from this group. “Before I did, my patients would often get very rare infections requiring protracted courses of antibiotics,” Banerjee, from Fred Hutch Cancer Center, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, said in an interview. “Moving to IVIG before the infections start makes much more sense.”
Banerjee also commented that, in general, “the myeloma field has been moving from IV treatments to subcutaneous treatments to lower ‘time toxicity’ and IVIG is a notable exception to that trend, but perhaps it won’t be this way forever.”
Many patients with rheumatologic conditions receive subcutaneous immunoglobulin, in some cases, with kits they can self-administer at home, Banerjee said, and “I know some groups are starting to work on moving subcutaneous immunoglobulin to the oncologic setting.”
Funding was provided by the Advancing Healthier Wisconsin Endowment. Cheruvalath has reported no relevant disclosures. Banerjee has reported consulting for Adaptive Biotechnologies, Bristol Myers Squibb, Caribou Biosciences, Genentech, GSK, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, Karyopharm, Legend Biotech, Pfizer, Sanofi, and SparkCures; and receiving research funding from AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Pack Health, Prothena, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASH 2024
Inside the Patient-Oncologist Bond: Why It’s Often So Strong
Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.
“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”
That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”
Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.
In that time,
“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.
Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.
The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.
Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.
Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.
“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.
Connecting Through Stress
Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.
Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.
The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.
“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.
The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.
According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.
The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.
With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”
What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.
“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.
In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.
“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”
A ‘Special Relationship’
Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.
The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.
“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”
Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.
Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.
Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.
Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.
“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”
Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.
Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.
Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.
More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.
“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.
The Dying Patient
Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.
After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.
Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.
Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.
The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.
“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”
From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.
For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.
“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.
Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.
Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.
“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”
Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.
When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”
But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”
Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.
“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”
That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”
Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.
In that time,
“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.
Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.
The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.
Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.
Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.
“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.
Connecting Through Stress
Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.
Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.
The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.
“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.
The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.
According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.
The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.
With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”
What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.
“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.
In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.
“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”
A ‘Special Relationship’
Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.
The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.
“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”
Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.
Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.
Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.
Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.
“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”
Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.
Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.
Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.
More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.
“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.
The Dying Patient
Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.
After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.
Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.
Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.
The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.
“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”
From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.
For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.
“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.
Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.
Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.
“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”
Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.
When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”
But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”
Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Rose Gerber was 39, mother to a third grader and a kindergartener, when the diagnosis came: Advanced HER2-positive breast cancer.
“On one of my first or second appointments, I took in a little picture of Alexander and Isabella,” Gerber said. Gerber showed her oncologist the picture and told her: “I’ll do anything. I just want to be there for them.”
That was 21 years ago. Today, her current cancer status is “no evidence of disease.”
Over the past 2 decades, Gerber has gotten to be there for her children. Her youngest is now a television producer and her oldest, a CPA.
In that time,
“I’ve seen multiple physicians over my 21 years, but my oncologist has always been the focal point, guiding me in the right direction,” Gerber said in an interview.
Over the years, Jaga guided Gerber through a range of treatment decisions, including a Herceptin clinical trial that the mom of two views as lifesaving. Jaga often took on the role of both doctor and therapist, even providing comfort in the smaller moments when Gerber would fret about her weight gain.
The oncologist-patient “bond is very, very, very special,” said Gerber, who now works as director of patient advocacy and education at the Community Oncology Alliance.
Gerber isn’t alone in calling out the depth of the oncologist-patient bond.
Over years, sometimes decades, patients and oncologists can experience a whole world together: The treatment successes, relapses, uncertainties, and tough calls. As a result, a deep therapeutic alliance often develops. And with each new hurdle or decision, that collaborative, human connection between doctor and patient continues to form new layers.
“It’s like a shared bonding experience over trauma, like strangers trapped on a subway and then we get out, and we’re now on the other side, celebrating together,” said Saad Khan, MD, an associate professor of medicine (oncology) at Stanford University in California.
Connecting Through Stress
Although studies exploring the oncologist-patient bond are limited, some research suggests that a strong therapeutic alliance between patients and oncologists not only provides a foundation for quality care but can also help improve patients’ quality of life, protect against suicidal ideation, and increase treatment adherence.
Because of how stressful and frightening a cancer diagnosis can be, creating “a trusting, uninterrupted, almost sacred environment for them” is paramount for Khan. “I have no doubt that the most important part of their treatment is that they find an oncologist in whom they have total confidence,” Khan wrote in a blog.
The stress that patients with cancer experience is well documented, but oncologists take on a lot themselves and can also experience intense stress (.
“I consider my patient’s battles to be my battles,” Khan wrote.
The stress can start with the daily schedule. Oncologists often have a high volume of patients and tend to spend more time with each individual than most.
According to a 2023 survey, oncologists see about 68 patients a week, on average, but some oncologists, like Khan, have many more. Khan typically sees 20-30 patients a day and continues to care for many over years.
The survey also found that oncologists tend to spend a lot of time with their patients. Compared with other physicians, oncologists are two times more likely to spend at least 25 minutes with each patient.
With this kind of patient volume and time, Khan said, “you’re going to be exhausted.”
What can compound the exhaustion are the occasions oncologists need to deliver bad news — this treatment isn’t working, your cancer has come roaring back and, perhaps the hardest, we have no therapeutic options left. The end-of-life conversations, in particular, can be heartbreaking, especially when a patient is young and not ready to stop trying.
“It can be hard for doctors to discuss the end of life,” Don Dizon, MD, director of the Pelvic Malignancies Program at Lifespan Cancer Institute and director of Medical Oncology at Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, wrote in a column in 2023. Instead, it can be tempting and is often easier to focus on the next treatment, “instilling hope that there’s more that can be done,” even if doing more will only do harm.
In the face of these challenging decisions, growing a personal connection with patients over time can help keep oncologists going.
“We’re not just chemotherapy salesmen,” Khan said in an interview. “We get to know their social support network, who’s going to be driving them [to and from appointments], where they go on vacation, their cat’s name, who their neighbors are.”
A ‘Special Relationship’
Ralph V. Boccia, MD, is often asked what he does.
The next question that often comes — “Why do I do what I do?” — is Boccia’s favorite.
“Someone needs to take these patients through their journey,” Boccia, the founder of The Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, Bethesda, Maryland, typically responds. He also often notes that “it is a special relationship you develop with the patient and their families.”
Boccia thinks about one long-term patient who captures this bond.
Joan Pinson, 70, was diagnosed with multiple myeloma about 25 years ago, when patients’ average survival was about 4 years.
Over a quarter century, Pinson has pivoted to different treatments, amid multiple relapses and remissions. Throughout most of this cancer journey, Boccia has been her primary oncologist, performing a stem cell transplant in 2000 and steering her to six clinical trials.
Her last relapse was 2 years ago, and since then she has been doing well on oral chemotherapy.
“Every time I relapsed, by the next appointment, he’d say, ‘here is what we are going to do,’ ” Pinson recalled. “I never worried, I never panicked. I knew he would take care of me.”
Over the years, Pinson and Boccia have shared many personal moments, sometimes by accident. One special moment happened early on in Pinson’s cancer journey. During an appointment, Boccia had “one ear to the phone” as his wife was about to deliver their first baby, Pinson recalled.
Later, Pinson met that child as a young man working in Boccia’s lab. She has also met Boccia’s wife, a nurse, when she filled in one day in the chemotherapy room.
Boccia now also treats Pinson’s husband who has prostate cancer, and he ruled out cancer when Pinson’s son, now in his 40s, had some worrisome symptoms.
More than 2 decades ago, Pinson told Boccia her goal was to see her youngest child graduate from high school. Now, six grandsons later, she has lived far beyond that goal.
“He has kept me alive,” said Pinson.
The Dying Patient
Harsha Vyas, MD, FACP, remembers the first encounter his office had with a 29-year-old woman referred with a diagnosis of stage IV breast cancer.
After just 15 minutes in the waiting room, the woman announced she was leaving. Although office staff assured the woman that she was next, the patient walked out.
Several months later, Vyas was called for an inpatient consult. It was the same woman.
Her lungs were full of fluid, and she was struggling to breathe, said Vyas, president and CEO of the Cancer Center of Middle Georgia, Dublin, and assistant professor at Augusta University in Georgia.
The woman, a single mother, told Vyas about her three young kids at home and asked him, “Doc, do something, please help me,” he recalled.
“Absolutely,” Vyas told her. But he had to be brutally honest about her prognosis and firm that she needed to follow his instructions. “You have a breast cancer I cannot cure,” he said. “All I can do is control the disease.”
From that first day, until the day she died, she came to every appointment and followed the treatment plan Vyas laid out.
For about 2 years, she responded well to treatment. And as the time passed and the trust grew, she began to open up to him. She showed him pictures. She talked about her children and being a mother.
“I’ve got to get my kids in a better place. I’m going to be there for them,” he recalled her saying.
Vyas admired her resourcefulness. She held down a part-time job, working retail and at a local restaurant. She figured out childcare so she could get to her chemotherapy appointments every 3 weeks and manage the copays.
Several years later, when she knew she was approaching the end of her life, she asked Vyas a question that hit hard.
“Doc, I don’t want to die and my kids find me dead. What can we do about it?”
Vyas, who has three daughters, imagined how traumatic this would be for a child. She and Vyas made the shared decision to cease treatment and begin home hospice. When the end was approaching, a hospice worker took over, waiting for bodily functions to cease.
When news of a death comes, “I say a little prayer, it’s almost like a send-off for that soul. That helps me absorb the news ... and let it go.”
But when the bond grows strong over time, as with his patient with breast cancer, Vyas said, “a piece of her is still with me.”
Khan had no relevant disclosures. Boccia and Vyas had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
ASH 2024 Myeloma Studies: My Top 10 Picks
First, let me place my selected studies in context by acknowledging my biases. As a clinician, I’m prone to choosing clinical rather than basic science or translational work — even if translational work might well end up exerting a pivotal impact on practice in the future. And now — in no particular order — here are my picks:
IFM 2017-03 Phase 3 Study
Frail patients are underrepresented in most myeloma studies, yet in this randomized trial for newly diagnosed myeloma, exclusively frail patients were enrolled. The trial compared daratumumab/lenalidomide to lenalidomide/dexamethasone, and the most recent follow/up shows a progression-free survival (PFS) (48.5 vs 21 months) and overall survival (OS) (not reached vs 36 months) benefit to daratumumab/lenalidomide. What I see in practice is that anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies are the best-tolerated drugs in this space and should be the backbone of any regimen for frail patients. Steroids should be omitted as early as possible. Future trials may optimize what to give in addition to the anti-CD38 therapy, and how to adapt/escalate therapy to frailty and clinical status, as lenalidomide remains difficult for such patients to tolerate.
AQUILA Study
This is a randomized, phase 3 comparison of daratumumab to observation for patients with smoldering myeloma. The endpoint was PFS. For context, similar studies done in asymptomatic CLL have shown improved PFS, but not OS, and the authors of such studies have concluded that improvement in PFS alone should not justify a change in approach.
This study shows that daratumumab can improve laboratory markers and reduce progression (60-month PFS rates of 63.1% for daratumumab vs 40.8% with observation). However, several important caveats remain. The protocol only mandated spine/pelvis MRI imaging, not whole-body MRI imaging, and such imaging was only performed once a year, which may not be frequent enough to catch lesions at an earlier stage. These details have important implications, as previous research shows that up to half of lesions can be missed by doing only a spine MRI, as opposed to a whole-body MRI.
All of this means that had more comprehensive imaging been done, many more patients may have been diagnosed with myeloma. Such patients may have been undertreated, and single agent daratumumab, with a response rate of just 63%, may not have been enough. Conversely, some patients may also have been overtreated using this approach, as the protocol allowed patients who had been diagnosed with smoldering myeloma up to 5 years earlier to be enrolled. Many of these people could have had indolent disease for years prior to enrollment and may not have ever progressed.
Further information is needed to help us understand this study better. What was the nature of the progression events: asymptomatic lab changes or morbid end organ damage? Was daratumumab given when patients in the control arm progressed to myeloma? My concern is that if patients in the control arm do not universally receive modern daratumumab-containing therapies when they develop myeloma, then an overall survival advantage may be shown simply because patients in the intervention arm are getting a good drug earlier in the disease, while those in the control arm are not getting a good drug at all. Nevertheless, despite these limitations, it is likely this trial will lead to regulatory approval of daratumumab in this space, and lots of discussions from patients and clinicians alike.
Extended Follow-Up of Anito-Cel in its First In-Human study
Two chimeric antigen receptor therapy (CAR-T) products are currently approved for myeloma. Cilta-cel is clearly effective but is associated with problematic late-onset neurological toxicities. Ide-cel appears much less effective. There is clearly a need for a product that is both effective and safe.
Anito-cel has two relevant abstracts this meeting that show much promise. Extended follow-up of anito-cel from its first in human study shows a promising 27-month PFS of 52%, and with no cases of delayed neurotoxicity. I also eagerly await further information from the registrational single-arm study of anti-cel being presented at ASH 2024, which should (hopefully) lead to its accelerated approval.
Screening for Myeloma for all People With Vertebral Fractures Likely Unnecessary
This elegant study of over 9,000 people with vertebral fractures shows that absolute risks for myeloma were 0.43% and 0.63% in women and men with grade 2-3 fractures, respectively, indicating that there is likely little benefit in evaluating asymptomatic individuals with incidentally discovered vertebral fractures for myeloma, unless other features are present. Spread the word.
Further Information on Cevostamab, Another Bispecific Option
We do need effective treatments for targets beyond just BCMA and GPRC5D. Cevostamab, a bispecific targeting FCRH5, represents another option, with updated data on 167 patients. With an overall response rate of 43% (duration of response, 10 months), and a response rate of about 30% in those with prior bispecific exposure, this data helps us contextualize expected benefits as we look forward to the eventual approval of this drug. The efficacy is relatively modest in those who have already progressed on bispecifics, but cevostamab would still be a welcome addition to our arsenal.
Is GPRC5D a Better Target for Car T Rather Than Bispecifics?
Our currently available GPRC5D bispecific (talquetamab) leads to high rates of skin, oral, and nail toxicity. This drug can also bring significant weight loss. These side effects make me consider that continuous targeting of GPRC5D through a bispecific may not be ideal, and that GPRC5D may be better as a one-time CAR T target. At ASH 2024, we will have 15-month follow-up data from BMS-986393, a GPRC5D CAR T. Response rates for this heavily pretreated population (76% of whom had triple refractory disease) were at 87%, with a median PFS of 14.5 months. Only 6% of patients experienced treatment-related weight loss, and nail (19%), skin (30%), and oral (31%) toxicities were relatively low. I look forward to updated data, as well as data on the resolution of the toxicities seen.
Daratumumab, a Game-Changer for AL Amyloidosis
A truly effective drug given early can change the natural history of disease, even if patients in the control arm only receive the drug later. A case in point is daratumumab. The 5-year survival rate was 76.1% for the daratumumab/cyclophosphamide/bortezomib/dexamethasone arm and 64.7% for cyclophosphamide/bortezomib/dexamethasone arm. This happened despite the fact that 67% of the control arm patients (among those who received therapy) went on to receive daratumumab later in the disease course.
Understanding how SMM Progresses to MM
We often hear that we should treat SMM and not just watch carefully because fractures may suddenly happen, or a patient may end up on dialysis. What this retrospective study tells us that amongst 427 patients with SMM, 42 had progression to myeloma, and amongst those 42, only 1 developed renal dysfunction (unclear if this resolved), and only 1 had lytic lesions that were symptomatic. The remainder were all asymptomatic lab and imaging changes. This is a retrospective study, and one should assume that follow-up was thus highly variable. It does not appear that diffusion weighted whole-body MRI imaging (our most sensitive imaging test) was employed universally or very frequently. Nevertheless, these powerful findings reassure us that, with close observation, morbidity is unlikely. Our group has designed a prospective study incorporating frequent diffusion weighted whole body MRI imaging to formally test this hypothesis (SPOTLIGHT, NCT06212323).
The Underperformance of Daratumumab/Lenalidomide/Dexamethasone in the Real World
At every major meeting I am reminded of the disconnect between real-world efficacy and clinical trial efficacy. Case in point: In this Austrian experience, daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone led to a PFS of 22.7 months vs 61.9 months in the MAIA trial of daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone. Such a sobering difference! And if you think this is an isolated experience, even in a US real-world cohort, consider that in a recently published comparative study dara/len/dex underperformed, although the time to next treatment or death was longer (37.8 months).
Delayed Neurotoxicity may not be Just a Consequence of high tumor burden
We currently think that some of the scariest side effects of cilta-cel, such as delayed neurotoxicity, may be a consequence of a high number of cancer cells and may be prevented by better disease control at the time of infusion. This study, a sobering analysis of 52 patients with delayed neurotoxicity occurring after CAR T, included 8 patients (15%) who were not heavily pretreated, and all had less than 5% plasma cells at the time of infusion. None of these patients had extramedullary disease. This result worries me, especially because cilta-cel is being studied and is poised for future approval in earlier line settings. It suggests that this toxicity may not always be a product of disease burden, contrary to our current belief.
I will be paying close attention to these 10 myeloma studies at ASH 2024, where I look forward to meeting you and learning more.Dr. Mohyuddin is assistant professor in the multiple myeloma program at the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
First, let me place my selected studies in context by acknowledging my biases. As a clinician, I’m prone to choosing clinical rather than basic science or translational work — even if translational work might well end up exerting a pivotal impact on practice in the future. And now — in no particular order — here are my picks:
IFM 2017-03 Phase 3 Study
Frail patients are underrepresented in most myeloma studies, yet in this randomized trial for newly diagnosed myeloma, exclusively frail patients were enrolled. The trial compared daratumumab/lenalidomide to lenalidomide/dexamethasone, and the most recent follow/up shows a progression-free survival (PFS) (48.5 vs 21 months) and overall survival (OS) (not reached vs 36 months) benefit to daratumumab/lenalidomide. What I see in practice is that anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies are the best-tolerated drugs in this space and should be the backbone of any regimen for frail patients. Steroids should be omitted as early as possible. Future trials may optimize what to give in addition to the anti-CD38 therapy, and how to adapt/escalate therapy to frailty and clinical status, as lenalidomide remains difficult for such patients to tolerate.
AQUILA Study
This is a randomized, phase 3 comparison of daratumumab to observation for patients with smoldering myeloma. The endpoint was PFS. For context, similar studies done in asymptomatic CLL have shown improved PFS, but not OS, and the authors of such studies have concluded that improvement in PFS alone should not justify a change in approach.
This study shows that daratumumab can improve laboratory markers and reduce progression (60-month PFS rates of 63.1% for daratumumab vs 40.8% with observation). However, several important caveats remain. The protocol only mandated spine/pelvis MRI imaging, not whole-body MRI imaging, and such imaging was only performed once a year, which may not be frequent enough to catch lesions at an earlier stage. These details have important implications, as previous research shows that up to half of lesions can be missed by doing only a spine MRI, as opposed to a whole-body MRI.
All of this means that had more comprehensive imaging been done, many more patients may have been diagnosed with myeloma. Such patients may have been undertreated, and single agent daratumumab, with a response rate of just 63%, may not have been enough. Conversely, some patients may also have been overtreated using this approach, as the protocol allowed patients who had been diagnosed with smoldering myeloma up to 5 years earlier to be enrolled. Many of these people could have had indolent disease for years prior to enrollment and may not have ever progressed.
Further information is needed to help us understand this study better. What was the nature of the progression events: asymptomatic lab changes or morbid end organ damage? Was daratumumab given when patients in the control arm progressed to myeloma? My concern is that if patients in the control arm do not universally receive modern daratumumab-containing therapies when they develop myeloma, then an overall survival advantage may be shown simply because patients in the intervention arm are getting a good drug earlier in the disease, while those in the control arm are not getting a good drug at all. Nevertheless, despite these limitations, it is likely this trial will lead to regulatory approval of daratumumab in this space, and lots of discussions from patients and clinicians alike.
Extended Follow-Up of Anito-Cel in its First In-Human study
Two chimeric antigen receptor therapy (CAR-T) products are currently approved for myeloma. Cilta-cel is clearly effective but is associated with problematic late-onset neurological toxicities. Ide-cel appears much less effective. There is clearly a need for a product that is both effective and safe.
Anito-cel has two relevant abstracts this meeting that show much promise. Extended follow-up of anito-cel from its first in human study shows a promising 27-month PFS of 52%, and with no cases of delayed neurotoxicity. I also eagerly await further information from the registrational single-arm study of anti-cel being presented at ASH 2024, which should (hopefully) lead to its accelerated approval.
Screening for Myeloma for all People With Vertebral Fractures Likely Unnecessary
This elegant study of over 9,000 people with vertebral fractures shows that absolute risks for myeloma were 0.43% and 0.63% in women and men with grade 2-3 fractures, respectively, indicating that there is likely little benefit in evaluating asymptomatic individuals with incidentally discovered vertebral fractures for myeloma, unless other features are present. Spread the word.
Further Information on Cevostamab, Another Bispecific Option
We do need effective treatments for targets beyond just BCMA and GPRC5D. Cevostamab, a bispecific targeting FCRH5, represents another option, with updated data on 167 patients. With an overall response rate of 43% (duration of response, 10 months), and a response rate of about 30% in those with prior bispecific exposure, this data helps us contextualize expected benefits as we look forward to the eventual approval of this drug. The efficacy is relatively modest in those who have already progressed on bispecifics, but cevostamab would still be a welcome addition to our arsenal.
Is GPRC5D a Better Target for Car T Rather Than Bispecifics?
Our currently available GPRC5D bispecific (talquetamab) leads to high rates of skin, oral, and nail toxicity. This drug can also bring significant weight loss. These side effects make me consider that continuous targeting of GPRC5D through a bispecific may not be ideal, and that GPRC5D may be better as a one-time CAR T target. At ASH 2024, we will have 15-month follow-up data from BMS-986393, a GPRC5D CAR T. Response rates for this heavily pretreated population (76% of whom had triple refractory disease) were at 87%, with a median PFS of 14.5 months. Only 6% of patients experienced treatment-related weight loss, and nail (19%), skin (30%), and oral (31%) toxicities were relatively low. I look forward to updated data, as well as data on the resolution of the toxicities seen.
Daratumumab, a Game-Changer for AL Amyloidosis
A truly effective drug given early can change the natural history of disease, even if patients in the control arm only receive the drug later. A case in point is daratumumab. The 5-year survival rate was 76.1% for the daratumumab/cyclophosphamide/bortezomib/dexamethasone arm and 64.7% for cyclophosphamide/bortezomib/dexamethasone arm. This happened despite the fact that 67% of the control arm patients (among those who received therapy) went on to receive daratumumab later in the disease course.
Understanding how SMM Progresses to MM
We often hear that we should treat SMM and not just watch carefully because fractures may suddenly happen, or a patient may end up on dialysis. What this retrospective study tells us that amongst 427 patients with SMM, 42 had progression to myeloma, and amongst those 42, only 1 developed renal dysfunction (unclear if this resolved), and only 1 had lytic lesions that were symptomatic. The remainder were all asymptomatic lab and imaging changes. This is a retrospective study, and one should assume that follow-up was thus highly variable. It does not appear that diffusion weighted whole-body MRI imaging (our most sensitive imaging test) was employed universally or very frequently. Nevertheless, these powerful findings reassure us that, with close observation, morbidity is unlikely. Our group has designed a prospective study incorporating frequent diffusion weighted whole body MRI imaging to formally test this hypothesis (SPOTLIGHT, NCT06212323).
The Underperformance of Daratumumab/Lenalidomide/Dexamethasone in the Real World
At every major meeting I am reminded of the disconnect between real-world efficacy and clinical trial efficacy. Case in point: In this Austrian experience, daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone led to a PFS of 22.7 months vs 61.9 months in the MAIA trial of daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone. Such a sobering difference! And if you think this is an isolated experience, even in a US real-world cohort, consider that in a recently published comparative study dara/len/dex underperformed, although the time to next treatment or death was longer (37.8 months).
Delayed Neurotoxicity may not be Just a Consequence of high tumor burden
We currently think that some of the scariest side effects of cilta-cel, such as delayed neurotoxicity, may be a consequence of a high number of cancer cells and may be prevented by better disease control at the time of infusion. This study, a sobering analysis of 52 patients with delayed neurotoxicity occurring after CAR T, included 8 patients (15%) who were not heavily pretreated, and all had less than 5% plasma cells at the time of infusion. None of these patients had extramedullary disease. This result worries me, especially because cilta-cel is being studied and is poised for future approval in earlier line settings. It suggests that this toxicity may not always be a product of disease burden, contrary to our current belief.
I will be paying close attention to these 10 myeloma studies at ASH 2024, where I look forward to meeting you and learning more.Dr. Mohyuddin is assistant professor in the multiple myeloma program at the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
First, let me place my selected studies in context by acknowledging my biases. As a clinician, I’m prone to choosing clinical rather than basic science or translational work — even if translational work might well end up exerting a pivotal impact on practice in the future. And now — in no particular order — here are my picks:
IFM 2017-03 Phase 3 Study
Frail patients are underrepresented in most myeloma studies, yet in this randomized trial for newly diagnosed myeloma, exclusively frail patients were enrolled. The trial compared daratumumab/lenalidomide to lenalidomide/dexamethasone, and the most recent follow/up shows a progression-free survival (PFS) (48.5 vs 21 months) and overall survival (OS) (not reached vs 36 months) benefit to daratumumab/lenalidomide. What I see in practice is that anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies are the best-tolerated drugs in this space and should be the backbone of any regimen for frail patients. Steroids should be omitted as early as possible. Future trials may optimize what to give in addition to the anti-CD38 therapy, and how to adapt/escalate therapy to frailty and clinical status, as lenalidomide remains difficult for such patients to tolerate.
AQUILA Study
This is a randomized, phase 3 comparison of daratumumab to observation for patients with smoldering myeloma. The endpoint was PFS. For context, similar studies done in asymptomatic CLL have shown improved PFS, but not OS, and the authors of such studies have concluded that improvement in PFS alone should not justify a change in approach.
This study shows that daratumumab can improve laboratory markers and reduce progression (60-month PFS rates of 63.1% for daratumumab vs 40.8% with observation). However, several important caveats remain. The protocol only mandated spine/pelvis MRI imaging, not whole-body MRI imaging, and such imaging was only performed once a year, which may not be frequent enough to catch lesions at an earlier stage. These details have important implications, as previous research shows that up to half of lesions can be missed by doing only a spine MRI, as opposed to a whole-body MRI.
All of this means that had more comprehensive imaging been done, many more patients may have been diagnosed with myeloma. Such patients may have been undertreated, and single agent daratumumab, with a response rate of just 63%, may not have been enough. Conversely, some patients may also have been overtreated using this approach, as the protocol allowed patients who had been diagnosed with smoldering myeloma up to 5 years earlier to be enrolled. Many of these people could have had indolent disease for years prior to enrollment and may not have ever progressed.
Further information is needed to help us understand this study better. What was the nature of the progression events: asymptomatic lab changes or morbid end organ damage? Was daratumumab given when patients in the control arm progressed to myeloma? My concern is that if patients in the control arm do not universally receive modern daratumumab-containing therapies when they develop myeloma, then an overall survival advantage may be shown simply because patients in the intervention arm are getting a good drug earlier in the disease, while those in the control arm are not getting a good drug at all. Nevertheless, despite these limitations, it is likely this trial will lead to regulatory approval of daratumumab in this space, and lots of discussions from patients and clinicians alike.
Extended Follow-Up of Anito-Cel in its First In-Human study
Two chimeric antigen receptor therapy (CAR-T) products are currently approved for myeloma. Cilta-cel is clearly effective but is associated with problematic late-onset neurological toxicities. Ide-cel appears much less effective. There is clearly a need for a product that is both effective and safe.
Anito-cel has two relevant abstracts this meeting that show much promise. Extended follow-up of anito-cel from its first in human study shows a promising 27-month PFS of 52%, and with no cases of delayed neurotoxicity. I also eagerly await further information from the registrational single-arm study of anti-cel being presented at ASH 2024, which should (hopefully) lead to its accelerated approval.
Screening for Myeloma for all People With Vertebral Fractures Likely Unnecessary
This elegant study of over 9,000 people with vertebral fractures shows that absolute risks for myeloma were 0.43% and 0.63% in women and men with grade 2-3 fractures, respectively, indicating that there is likely little benefit in evaluating asymptomatic individuals with incidentally discovered vertebral fractures for myeloma, unless other features are present. Spread the word.
Further Information on Cevostamab, Another Bispecific Option
We do need effective treatments for targets beyond just BCMA and GPRC5D. Cevostamab, a bispecific targeting FCRH5, represents another option, with updated data on 167 patients. With an overall response rate of 43% (duration of response, 10 months), and a response rate of about 30% in those with prior bispecific exposure, this data helps us contextualize expected benefits as we look forward to the eventual approval of this drug. The efficacy is relatively modest in those who have already progressed on bispecifics, but cevostamab would still be a welcome addition to our arsenal.
Is GPRC5D a Better Target for Car T Rather Than Bispecifics?
Our currently available GPRC5D bispecific (talquetamab) leads to high rates of skin, oral, and nail toxicity. This drug can also bring significant weight loss. These side effects make me consider that continuous targeting of GPRC5D through a bispecific may not be ideal, and that GPRC5D may be better as a one-time CAR T target. At ASH 2024, we will have 15-month follow-up data from BMS-986393, a GPRC5D CAR T. Response rates for this heavily pretreated population (76% of whom had triple refractory disease) were at 87%, with a median PFS of 14.5 months. Only 6% of patients experienced treatment-related weight loss, and nail (19%), skin (30%), and oral (31%) toxicities were relatively low. I look forward to updated data, as well as data on the resolution of the toxicities seen.
Daratumumab, a Game-Changer for AL Amyloidosis
A truly effective drug given early can change the natural history of disease, even if patients in the control arm only receive the drug later. A case in point is daratumumab. The 5-year survival rate was 76.1% for the daratumumab/cyclophosphamide/bortezomib/dexamethasone arm and 64.7% for cyclophosphamide/bortezomib/dexamethasone arm. This happened despite the fact that 67% of the control arm patients (among those who received therapy) went on to receive daratumumab later in the disease course.
Understanding how SMM Progresses to MM
We often hear that we should treat SMM and not just watch carefully because fractures may suddenly happen, or a patient may end up on dialysis. What this retrospective study tells us that amongst 427 patients with SMM, 42 had progression to myeloma, and amongst those 42, only 1 developed renal dysfunction (unclear if this resolved), and only 1 had lytic lesions that were symptomatic. The remainder were all asymptomatic lab and imaging changes. This is a retrospective study, and one should assume that follow-up was thus highly variable. It does not appear that diffusion weighted whole-body MRI imaging (our most sensitive imaging test) was employed universally or very frequently. Nevertheless, these powerful findings reassure us that, with close observation, morbidity is unlikely. Our group has designed a prospective study incorporating frequent diffusion weighted whole body MRI imaging to formally test this hypothesis (SPOTLIGHT, NCT06212323).
The Underperformance of Daratumumab/Lenalidomide/Dexamethasone in the Real World
At every major meeting I am reminded of the disconnect between real-world efficacy and clinical trial efficacy. Case in point: In this Austrian experience, daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone led to a PFS of 22.7 months vs 61.9 months in the MAIA trial of daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone. Such a sobering difference! And if you think this is an isolated experience, even in a US real-world cohort, consider that in a recently published comparative study dara/len/dex underperformed, although the time to next treatment or death was longer (37.8 months).
Delayed Neurotoxicity may not be Just a Consequence of high tumor burden
We currently think that some of the scariest side effects of cilta-cel, such as delayed neurotoxicity, may be a consequence of a high number of cancer cells and may be prevented by better disease control at the time of infusion. This study, a sobering analysis of 52 patients with delayed neurotoxicity occurring after CAR T, included 8 patients (15%) who were not heavily pretreated, and all had less than 5% plasma cells at the time of infusion. None of these patients had extramedullary disease. This result worries me, especially because cilta-cel is being studied and is poised for future approval in earlier line settings. It suggests that this toxicity may not always be a product of disease burden, contrary to our current belief.
I will be paying close attention to these 10 myeloma studies at ASH 2024, where I look forward to meeting you and learning more.Dr. Mohyuddin is assistant professor in the multiple myeloma program at the Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Outpatient CAR T: Safe, Effective, Accessible
In one recent study, an industry-funded phase 2 trial, researchers found similar outcomes from outpatient and inpatient CAR T-cell therapy for relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma with lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi).
Another recent study reported that outpatient treatment of B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma with tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) had similar efficacy to inpatient treatment. Meanwhile, a 2023 review of CAR T-cell therapy in various settings found similar outcomes in outpatient and inpatient treatment.
“The future of CAR T-cell therapy lies in balancing safety with accessibility,” said Rayne Rouce, MD, a pediatric oncologist at Texas Children’s Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, in an interview. “Expanding CAR T-cell therapy beyond large medical centers is a critical next step.”
Great Outcomes, Low Access
Since 2017, the FDA has approved six CAR T-cell therapies, which target cancer by harnessing the power of a patient’s own T cells. As an Oregon Health & Sciences University/Knight Cancer Center website explains, T cells are removed from the patient’s body, “genetically modified to make the chimeric antigen receptor, or CAR, [which] protein binds to specific proteins on the surface of cancer cells.”
Modified cells are grown and then infused back into the body, where they “multiply and may be able to destroy all the cancer cells.”
As Rouce puts it, “CAR T-cells have revolutionized the treatment of relapsed or refractory blood cancers.” One or more of the therapies have been approved to treat types of lymphoblastic leukemia, B-cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and multiple myeloma.
A 2023 review of clinical trial data reported complete response rates of 40%-54% in aggressive B-cell lymphoma, 67% in mantle cell lymphoma, and 69%-74% in indolent B cell lymphoma.
“Commercialization of CAR T-cell therapy brought hope that access would expand beyond the major academic medical centers with the highly specialized infrastructure and advanced laboratories required to manufacture and ultimately treat patients,” Rouce said. “However, it quickly became clear that patients who are underinsured or uninsured — or who live outside the network of the well-resourced institutions that house these therapies — are still unable to access these potentially life-saving therapies.”
A 2024 report estimated the cost of CAR T-cell therapy as $700,000-$1 million and said only a small percentage of those who could benefit from the treatment actually get it. For example, an estimated 10,000 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma alone could benefit from CAR T therapy annually, but a survey of 200 US healthcare centers in 2021 found that 1900 procedures were performed overall for all indications.
Distance to Treatment Is a Major Obstacle
Even if patients have insurance plans willing to cover CAR T-cell therapy, they may not be able get care. While more than 150 US centers are certified to administer the therapy, “distance to major medical centers with CAR T capabilities is a major obstacle,” Yuliya Linhares, MD, chief of lymphoma at Miami Cancer Institute in Miami, Florida, said in an interview.
“I have had patients who chose to not proceed with CAR T therapy due to inability to travel the distance to the medical center for pre-CAR T appointments and assessments and a lack of caretakers who are available to stay nearby,” Linhares said.
Indeed, the challenges facing patients in rural and underserved urban areas can be overwhelming, Hoda Badr, PhD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, said in an interview.
“They must take time off work, arrange accommodations near treatment sites, and manage travel costs, all of which strain limited financial resources. The inability to afford these additional expenses can lead to delays in receiving care or patients forgoing the treatment altogether,” Badr said. She added that “the psychological and social burden of being away from family and community support systems during treatment can intensify the stress of an already difficult situation.”
A statistic tells the story of the urban/community divide. CAR T-cell therapy administration at academic centers after leukapheresis — the separation and collection of white blood cells — is reported to be at around 90%, while it’s only 47% in community-based practices that have to refer patients elsewhere, Linhares noted.
Researchers Explore CAR T-Cell Therapy in the Community
Linhares is lead author of the phase 2 trial that explored administration of lisocabtagene maraleucel in 82 patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma. The findings were published Sept. 30 in Blood Advances.
The OUTREACH trial, funded by Juno/Bristol-Myers Squibb, treated patients in the third line and beyond at community medical centers (outpatient-monitored, 70%; inpatient-monitored, 30%). The trial didn’t require facilities to be certified by the Foundation for the Accreditation of Cellular Therapy (FACT); all had to be non-tertiary cancer centers that weren’t associated with a university. In order to administer therapy on the outpatient basis, the centers had to have phase 1 or hematopoietic stem cell transplant capabilities.
As Linhares explained, 72% of participating centers hadn’t provided CAR T-cell therapy before, and 44% did not have FACT accreditation. “About 32% of patients received CAR T at CAR T naive sites, while 70% of patients received CAR T as outpatients. Investigators had to decide whether patients qualified for the outpatient observation or had to be admitted for the inpatient observation,” she noted.
Community Outcomes Were Comparable to Major Trial
As for the results, grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred at a similar frequency among outpatients and inpatients at 74% and 76%, Linhares said. There were no grade 5 adverse events, and 25% of patients treated as outpatients were never hospitalized.
Response rates were similar to those in the major TRANSCEND trial with the objective response rates rate of 80% and complete response rates of 54%.
“Overall,” Linhares said, “our study demonstrated that with the availability of standard operating procedures, specially trained staff and a multidisciplinary team trained in CAR T toxicity management, inpatient and outpatient CAR T administration is feasible at specialized community medical centers.”
In 2023, another study examined patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma who were treated on an outpatient basis with tisagenlecleucel. Researchers reported that outpatient therapy was “feasible and associated with similar efficacy outcomes as inpatient treatment.”
And a 2023 systematic literature review identified 11 studies that reported outpatient vs inpatient outcomes in CAR T-cell therapy and found “comparable response rates (80-82% in outpatient and 72-80% in inpatient).” Costs were cheaper in the outpatient setting.
Research findings like these are good news, Baylor College of Medicine’s Badr said. “Outpatient administration could help to scale the availability of this therapy to a broader range of healthcare settings, including those serving underserved populations. Findings indicate promising safety profiles, which is encouraging for expanding access.”
Not Every Patient Can Tolerate Outpatient Care
Linhares noted that the patients who received outpatient care in the lisocabtagene maraleucel study were in better shape than those in the inpatient group. Those selected for inpatient care had “higher disease risk characteristics, including high grade B cell lymphoma histology, higher disease burden, and having received bridging therapy. This points to the fact that the investigators properly selected patients who were at a higher risk of complications for inpatient observation. Additionally, some patients stayed as inpatient due to social factors, which increases length of stay independently of disease characteristics.”
Specifically, reasons for inpatient monitoring were disease characteristics (48%) including tumor burden and risk of adverse events; psychosocial factors (32%) including lack of caregiver support or transportation; COVID-19 precautions (8%); pre-infusion adverse events (8%) of fever and vasovagal reaction; and principal investigator decision (4%) due to limited hospital experience with CAR T-cell therapy.
Texas Children’s Cancer Center’s Rouce said “certain patients, particularly those with higher risk for complications or those who require intensive monitoring, may not be suited for outpatient CAR T-cell therapy. This may be due to other comorbidities or baseline factors known to predispose to CAR T-related toxicities. However, evidence-based risk mitigation algorithms may still allow closely monitored outpatient treatment, with recognition that hospital admission for incipient side effects may be necessary.”
What’s Next for Access to Therapy?
Rouce noted that her institution, like many others, is offering CAR T-cell therapy on an outpatient basis. “Additionally, continued scientific innovation, such as immediately available, off-the-shelf cell therapies and inducible safety switches, will ultimately improve access,” she said.
Linhares noted a recent advance and highlighted research that’s now in progress. “CAR Ts now have an indication as a second-line therapy in relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma, and there are ongoing clinical trials that will potentially move CAR Ts into the first line,” she said. “Some trials are exploring allogeneic, readily available off-the-shelf CAR T for the treatment of minimal residual disease positive large B-cell lymphoma after completion of first-line therapy.”
These potential advances “are increasing the need for CAR T-capable medical centers,” Linhares noted. “More and more medical centers with expert hematology teams are becoming CAR T-certified, with more patients having access to CAR T.”
Still, she said, “I don’t think access is nearly as good as it should be. Many patients in rural areas are still unable to get this life-saving treatment. “However, “it is very possible that other novel targeted therapies, such as bispecific antibodies, will be used in place of CAR T in areas with poor CAR T access. Bispecific antibody efficacy in various B cell lymphoma histologies are being currently explored.”
Rouce discloses relationships with Novartis and Pfizer. Linhares reports ties with Kyowa Kirin, AbbVie, ADC, BeiGene, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Seagen, and TG. Badr has no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
In one recent study, an industry-funded phase 2 trial, researchers found similar outcomes from outpatient and inpatient CAR T-cell therapy for relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma with lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi).
Another recent study reported that outpatient treatment of B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma with tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) had similar efficacy to inpatient treatment. Meanwhile, a 2023 review of CAR T-cell therapy in various settings found similar outcomes in outpatient and inpatient treatment.
“The future of CAR T-cell therapy lies in balancing safety with accessibility,” said Rayne Rouce, MD, a pediatric oncologist at Texas Children’s Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, in an interview. “Expanding CAR T-cell therapy beyond large medical centers is a critical next step.”
Great Outcomes, Low Access
Since 2017, the FDA has approved six CAR T-cell therapies, which target cancer by harnessing the power of a patient’s own T cells. As an Oregon Health & Sciences University/Knight Cancer Center website explains, T cells are removed from the patient’s body, “genetically modified to make the chimeric antigen receptor, or CAR, [which] protein binds to specific proteins on the surface of cancer cells.”
Modified cells are grown and then infused back into the body, where they “multiply and may be able to destroy all the cancer cells.”
As Rouce puts it, “CAR T-cells have revolutionized the treatment of relapsed or refractory blood cancers.” One or more of the therapies have been approved to treat types of lymphoblastic leukemia, B-cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and multiple myeloma.
A 2023 review of clinical trial data reported complete response rates of 40%-54% in aggressive B-cell lymphoma, 67% in mantle cell lymphoma, and 69%-74% in indolent B cell lymphoma.
“Commercialization of CAR T-cell therapy brought hope that access would expand beyond the major academic medical centers with the highly specialized infrastructure and advanced laboratories required to manufacture and ultimately treat patients,” Rouce said. “However, it quickly became clear that patients who are underinsured or uninsured — or who live outside the network of the well-resourced institutions that house these therapies — are still unable to access these potentially life-saving therapies.”
A 2024 report estimated the cost of CAR T-cell therapy as $700,000-$1 million and said only a small percentage of those who could benefit from the treatment actually get it. For example, an estimated 10,000 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma alone could benefit from CAR T therapy annually, but a survey of 200 US healthcare centers in 2021 found that 1900 procedures were performed overall for all indications.
Distance to Treatment Is a Major Obstacle
Even if patients have insurance plans willing to cover CAR T-cell therapy, they may not be able get care. While more than 150 US centers are certified to administer the therapy, “distance to major medical centers with CAR T capabilities is a major obstacle,” Yuliya Linhares, MD, chief of lymphoma at Miami Cancer Institute in Miami, Florida, said in an interview.
“I have had patients who chose to not proceed with CAR T therapy due to inability to travel the distance to the medical center for pre-CAR T appointments and assessments and a lack of caretakers who are available to stay nearby,” Linhares said.
Indeed, the challenges facing patients in rural and underserved urban areas can be overwhelming, Hoda Badr, PhD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, said in an interview.
“They must take time off work, arrange accommodations near treatment sites, and manage travel costs, all of which strain limited financial resources. The inability to afford these additional expenses can lead to delays in receiving care or patients forgoing the treatment altogether,” Badr said. She added that “the psychological and social burden of being away from family and community support systems during treatment can intensify the stress of an already difficult situation.”
A statistic tells the story of the urban/community divide. CAR T-cell therapy administration at academic centers after leukapheresis — the separation and collection of white blood cells — is reported to be at around 90%, while it’s only 47% in community-based practices that have to refer patients elsewhere, Linhares noted.
Researchers Explore CAR T-Cell Therapy in the Community
Linhares is lead author of the phase 2 trial that explored administration of lisocabtagene maraleucel in 82 patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma. The findings were published Sept. 30 in Blood Advances.
The OUTREACH trial, funded by Juno/Bristol-Myers Squibb, treated patients in the third line and beyond at community medical centers (outpatient-monitored, 70%; inpatient-monitored, 30%). The trial didn’t require facilities to be certified by the Foundation for the Accreditation of Cellular Therapy (FACT); all had to be non-tertiary cancer centers that weren’t associated with a university. In order to administer therapy on the outpatient basis, the centers had to have phase 1 or hematopoietic stem cell transplant capabilities.
As Linhares explained, 72% of participating centers hadn’t provided CAR T-cell therapy before, and 44% did not have FACT accreditation. “About 32% of patients received CAR T at CAR T naive sites, while 70% of patients received CAR T as outpatients. Investigators had to decide whether patients qualified for the outpatient observation or had to be admitted for the inpatient observation,” she noted.
Community Outcomes Were Comparable to Major Trial
As for the results, grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred at a similar frequency among outpatients and inpatients at 74% and 76%, Linhares said. There were no grade 5 adverse events, and 25% of patients treated as outpatients were never hospitalized.
Response rates were similar to those in the major TRANSCEND trial with the objective response rates rate of 80% and complete response rates of 54%.
“Overall,” Linhares said, “our study demonstrated that with the availability of standard operating procedures, specially trained staff and a multidisciplinary team trained in CAR T toxicity management, inpatient and outpatient CAR T administration is feasible at specialized community medical centers.”
In 2023, another study examined patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma who were treated on an outpatient basis with tisagenlecleucel. Researchers reported that outpatient therapy was “feasible and associated with similar efficacy outcomes as inpatient treatment.”
And a 2023 systematic literature review identified 11 studies that reported outpatient vs inpatient outcomes in CAR T-cell therapy and found “comparable response rates (80-82% in outpatient and 72-80% in inpatient).” Costs were cheaper in the outpatient setting.
Research findings like these are good news, Baylor College of Medicine’s Badr said. “Outpatient administration could help to scale the availability of this therapy to a broader range of healthcare settings, including those serving underserved populations. Findings indicate promising safety profiles, which is encouraging for expanding access.”
Not Every Patient Can Tolerate Outpatient Care
Linhares noted that the patients who received outpatient care in the lisocabtagene maraleucel study were in better shape than those in the inpatient group. Those selected for inpatient care had “higher disease risk characteristics, including high grade B cell lymphoma histology, higher disease burden, and having received bridging therapy. This points to the fact that the investigators properly selected patients who were at a higher risk of complications for inpatient observation. Additionally, some patients stayed as inpatient due to social factors, which increases length of stay independently of disease characteristics.”
Specifically, reasons for inpatient monitoring were disease characteristics (48%) including tumor burden and risk of adverse events; psychosocial factors (32%) including lack of caregiver support or transportation; COVID-19 precautions (8%); pre-infusion adverse events (8%) of fever and vasovagal reaction; and principal investigator decision (4%) due to limited hospital experience with CAR T-cell therapy.
Texas Children’s Cancer Center’s Rouce said “certain patients, particularly those with higher risk for complications or those who require intensive monitoring, may not be suited for outpatient CAR T-cell therapy. This may be due to other comorbidities or baseline factors known to predispose to CAR T-related toxicities. However, evidence-based risk mitigation algorithms may still allow closely monitored outpatient treatment, with recognition that hospital admission for incipient side effects may be necessary.”
What’s Next for Access to Therapy?
Rouce noted that her institution, like many others, is offering CAR T-cell therapy on an outpatient basis. “Additionally, continued scientific innovation, such as immediately available, off-the-shelf cell therapies and inducible safety switches, will ultimately improve access,” she said.
Linhares noted a recent advance and highlighted research that’s now in progress. “CAR Ts now have an indication as a second-line therapy in relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma, and there are ongoing clinical trials that will potentially move CAR Ts into the first line,” she said. “Some trials are exploring allogeneic, readily available off-the-shelf CAR T for the treatment of minimal residual disease positive large B-cell lymphoma after completion of first-line therapy.”
These potential advances “are increasing the need for CAR T-capable medical centers,” Linhares noted. “More and more medical centers with expert hematology teams are becoming CAR T-certified, with more patients having access to CAR T.”
Still, she said, “I don’t think access is nearly as good as it should be. Many patients in rural areas are still unable to get this life-saving treatment. “However, “it is very possible that other novel targeted therapies, such as bispecific antibodies, will be used in place of CAR T in areas with poor CAR T access. Bispecific antibody efficacy in various B cell lymphoma histologies are being currently explored.”
Rouce discloses relationships with Novartis and Pfizer. Linhares reports ties with Kyowa Kirin, AbbVie, ADC, BeiGene, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Seagen, and TG. Badr has no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
In one recent study, an industry-funded phase 2 trial, researchers found similar outcomes from outpatient and inpatient CAR T-cell therapy for relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma with lisocabtagene maraleucel (Breyanzi).
Another recent study reported that outpatient treatment of B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma with tisagenlecleucel (Kymriah) had similar efficacy to inpatient treatment. Meanwhile, a 2023 review of CAR T-cell therapy in various settings found similar outcomes in outpatient and inpatient treatment.
“The future of CAR T-cell therapy lies in balancing safety with accessibility,” said Rayne Rouce, MD, a pediatric oncologist at Texas Children’s Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, in an interview. “Expanding CAR T-cell therapy beyond large medical centers is a critical next step.”
Great Outcomes, Low Access
Since 2017, the FDA has approved six CAR T-cell therapies, which target cancer by harnessing the power of a patient’s own T cells. As an Oregon Health & Sciences University/Knight Cancer Center website explains, T cells are removed from the patient’s body, “genetically modified to make the chimeric antigen receptor, or CAR, [which] protein binds to specific proteins on the surface of cancer cells.”
Modified cells are grown and then infused back into the body, where they “multiply and may be able to destroy all the cancer cells.”
As Rouce puts it, “CAR T-cells have revolutionized the treatment of relapsed or refractory blood cancers.” One or more of the therapies have been approved to treat types of lymphoblastic leukemia, B-cell lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, and multiple myeloma.
A 2023 review of clinical trial data reported complete response rates of 40%-54% in aggressive B-cell lymphoma, 67% in mantle cell lymphoma, and 69%-74% in indolent B cell lymphoma.
“Commercialization of CAR T-cell therapy brought hope that access would expand beyond the major academic medical centers with the highly specialized infrastructure and advanced laboratories required to manufacture and ultimately treat patients,” Rouce said. “However, it quickly became clear that patients who are underinsured or uninsured — or who live outside the network of the well-resourced institutions that house these therapies — are still unable to access these potentially life-saving therapies.”
A 2024 report estimated the cost of CAR T-cell therapy as $700,000-$1 million and said only a small percentage of those who could benefit from the treatment actually get it. For example, an estimated 10,000 patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma alone could benefit from CAR T therapy annually, but a survey of 200 US healthcare centers in 2021 found that 1900 procedures were performed overall for all indications.
Distance to Treatment Is a Major Obstacle
Even if patients have insurance plans willing to cover CAR T-cell therapy, they may not be able get care. While more than 150 US centers are certified to administer the therapy, “distance to major medical centers with CAR T capabilities is a major obstacle,” Yuliya Linhares, MD, chief of lymphoma at Miami Cancer Institute in Miami, Florida, said in an interview.
“I have had patients who chose to not proceed with CAR T therapy due to inability to travel the distance to the medical center for pre-CAR T appointments and assessments and a lack of caretakers who are available to stay nearby,” Linhares said.
Indeed, the challenges facing patients in rural and underserved urban areas can be overwhelming, Hoda Badr, PhD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, said in an interview.
“They must take time off work, arrange accommodations near treatment sites, and manage travel costs, all of which strain limited financial resources. The inability to afford these additional expenses can lead to delays in receiving care or patients forgoing the treatment altogether,” Badr said. She added that “the psychological and social burden of being away from family and community support systems during treatment can intensify the stress of an already difficult situation.”
A statistic tells the story of the urban/community divide. CAR T-cell therapy administration at academic centers after leukapheresis — the separation and collection of white blood cells — is reported to be at around 90%, while it’s only 47% in community-based practices that have to refer patients elsewhere, Linhares noted.
Researchers Explore CAR T-Cell Therapy in the Community
Linhares is lead author of the phase 2 trial that explored administration of lisocabtagene maraleucel in 82 patients with relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma. The findings were published Sept. 30 in Blood Advances.
The OUTREACH trial, funded by Juno/Bristol-Myers Squibb, treated patients in the third line and beyond at community medical centers (outpatient-monitored, 70%; inpatient-monitored, 30%). The trial didn’t require facilities to be certified by the Foundation for the Accreditation of Cellular Therapy (FACT); all had to be non-tertiary cancer centers that weren’t associated with a university. In order to administer therapy on the outpatient basis, the centers had to have phase 1 or hematopoietic stem cell transplant capabilities.
As Linhares explained, 72% of participating centers hadn’t provided CAR T-cell therapy before, and 44% did not have FACT accreditation. “About 32% of patients received CAR T at CAR T naive sites, while 70% of patients received CAR T as outpatients. Investigators had to decide whether patients qualified for the outpatient observation or had to be admitted for the inpatient observation,” she noted.
Community Outcomes Were Comparable to Major Trial
As for the results, grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred at a similar frequency among outpatients and inpatients at 74% and 76%, Linhares said. There were no grade 5 adverse events, and 25% of patients treated as outpatients were never hospitalized.
Response rates were similar to those in the major TRANSCEND trial with the objective response rates rate of 80% and complete response rates of 54%.
“Overall,” Linhares said, “our study demonstrated that with the availability of standard operating procedures, specially trained staff and a multidisciplinary team trained in CAR T toxicity management, inpatient and outpatient CAR T administration is feasible at specialized community medical centers.”
In 2023, another study examined patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma who were treated on an outpatient basis with tisagenlecleucel. Researchers reported that outpatient therapy was “feasible and associated with similar efficacy outcomes as inpatient treatment.”
And a 2023 systematic literature review identified 11 studies that reported outpatient vs inpatient outcomes in CAR T-cell therapy and found “comparable response rates (80-82% in outpatient and 72-80% in inpatient).” Costs were cheaper in the outpatient setting.
Research findings like these are good news, Baylor College of Medicine’s Badr said. “Outpatient administration could help to scale the availability of this therapy to a broader range of healthcare settings, including those serving underserved populations. Findings indicate promising safety profiles, which is encouraging for expanding access.”
Not Every Patient Can Tolerate Outpatient Care
Linhares noted that the patients who received outpatient care in the lisocabtagene maraleucel study were in better shape than those in the inpatient group. Those selected for inpatient care had “higher disease risk characteristics, including high grade B cell lymphoma histology, higher disease burden, and having received bridging therapy. This points to the fact that the investigators properly selected patients who were at a higher risk of complications for inpatient observation. Additionally, some patients stayed as inpatient due to social factors, which increases length of stay independently of disease characteristics.”
Specifically, reasons for inpatient monitoring were disease characteristics (48%) including tumor burden and risk of adverse events; psychosocial factors (32%) including lack of caregiver support or transportation; COVID-19 precautions (8%); pre-infusion adverse events (8%) of fever and vasovagal reaction; and principal investigator decision (4%) due to limited hospital experience with CAR T-cell therapy.
Texas Children’s Cancer Center’s Rouce said “certain patients, particularly those with higher risk for complications or those who require intensive monitoring, may not be suited for outpatient CAR T-cell therapy. This may be due to other comorbidities or baseline factors known to predispose to CAR T-related toxicities. However, evidence-based risk mitigation algorithms may still allow closely monitored outpatient treatment, with recognition that hospital admission for incipient side effects may be necessary.”
What’s Next for Access to Therapy?
Rouce noted that her institution, like many others, is offering CAR T-cell therapy on an outpatient basis. “Additionally, continued scientific innovation, such as immediately available, off-the-shelf cell therapies and inducible safety switches, will ultimately improve access,” she said.
Linhares noted a recent advance and highlighted research that’s now in progress. “CAR Ts now have an indication as a second-line therapy in relapsed/refractory large B-cell lymphoma, and there are ongoing clinical trials that will potentially move CAR Ts into the first line,” she said. “Some trials are exploring allogeneic, readily available off-the-shelf CAR T for the treatment of minimal residual disease positive large B-cell lymphoma after completion of first-line therapy.”
These potential advances “are increasing the need for CAR T-capable medical centers,” Linhares noted. “More and more medical centers with expert hematology teams are becoming CAR T-certified, with more patients having access to CAR T.”
Still, she said, “I don’t think access is nearly as good as it should be. Many patients in rural areas are still unable to get this life-saving treatment. “However, “it is very possible that other novel targeted therapies, such as bispecific antibodies, will be used in place of CAR T in areas with poor CAR T access. Bispecific antibody efficacy in various B cell lymphoma histologies are being currently explored.”
Rouce discloses relationships with Novartis and Pfizer. Linhares reports ties with Kyowa Kirin, AbbVie, ADC, BeiGene, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Seagen, and TG. Badr has no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Multi-Refractory MM: After Immunotherapy, What?
Two independent experts, addressing this issue at the 2024 Lymphoma, Leukemia & Myeloma Congress, offered several practical recommendations for eliciting a therapeutic response after patients with multi-refractory MM have failed everything. One approach they endorsed was allowing patients to recover from T-cell exhaustion.
“We used to think that as soon as multiple myeloma patients progress on a CAR T-cell therapy, it was sort of game over,” said Joseph Mikhael, MD, professor, Translational Genomics Research Institute, City of Hope Cancer Center Phoenix, Arizona.
“But I think we are seeing many ways to salvage these patients, including going back to a CAR T product,” said Mikhael, who also serves as the chief medical officer of the International Myeloma Foundation.
Now that CAR T cells and BsABs are widely available, Mikhael warned that there will be a growing need for other strategies to offer when these therapies fail.
A similar point was made by Jorge Monge, MD, an assistant professor, Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City. He largely focused on newer therapies with the potential to provide salvage opportunities in advanced refractory MM, but he pointed out that one application might be to permit T-cell recovery after exhaustion following B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)–targeted therapies.
The two talks covered some of the same ground. Both, for example, discussed a potential role for the exportin 1 (XPO1) inhibitor selinexor (Xpovio) in the multidrug refractory setting. In combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone, selinexor was approved in 2020 for treatment-experienced patients but is often overlooked in late-stage disease.
As a strategy to elicit a response following BCMA-targeted therapies, both Mikhael and Monge cited data showing selinexor to be active and that side effects are relatively well managed if antiemetics are offered preemptively to control nausea, one of its most common side effects.
Monge also talked about the promise of cereblon E3 ligase modulatory drugs (CELMoDs) that are now in clinical trials. These drugs, such as mezigdomide and iberdomide, both of which are in advanced stages of clinical testing, are similar to the immunomodulatory agents lenalidomide and pomalidomide. However, their greater potency does not appear to substantially increase risk for adverse events, according to Monge.
CELMoDs Active After CAR T-Cell Therapy
Most importantly, from the standpoint of their potential role in multidrug-refractory MM, both mezigdomide and iberdomide have so far shown substantial activity in patients previously exposed to BCMA-targeted therapies, according to Monge. Although the data have been generated in small numbers of patients, he reported that objective response rates have ranged from 37% to 50%.
These rates in treatment-experience patients are lower relative to those achieved in patients with no prior exposure to BCMA-targeted drugs, but Monge said that the durations of response, exceeding 6 months in some studies, might provide enough time for the T-cell recovery needed for a second course of CAR T-cell therapy.
There are other promising therapies on the horizon relevant to controlling multidrug refractory MM, including the likely return of the antibody drug conjugate (ADC) belantamab mafodotin (Blenrep®). This drug was withdrawn in 2022, when the DREAMM-3 trial failed to show an advantage on the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) for this drug alone over pomalidomide and dexamethasone. The failed results of the DREAMM-3 trial meant that the drug did not meet FDA requirements for confirmatory trials of drugs approved through the agency’s accelerated approval program.
However, recently published results from the phase 3 DREAMM-8 trial did show a PFS advantage for belantamab mafodotin, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone over pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone at 12 months (HR 0.50; P < .0010). On the basis of this result and other positive findings, including a deeper response, Mikhael predicted that this drug will be reintroduced.
It “might take a year or more” to find its way through the approval process, but Mikhael said that he is among those who think it will have value in advanced MM.*
Many of the newer MM drugs, including bispecifics that engage proteins on the surface of the myeloma cell other than BCMA, such as G protein–coupled receptor family C group, might provide alternatives to BCMA-targeted therapies in late stages of disease, but at least some newer drugs, as well as existing drugs in combinations, might play an important role in refractory MM by restoring BCMA as a target.
“The BCMA target is not easily lost, and I think we can leverage it more than once,” Mikhael said.
This potential, which Mikhael acknowledged is mostly supported with relatively small sets of data, involves “a lot of question marks, a lot of maybes,” so the strategies are hard to compared. However, the “incredible evolution in multiple myeloma therapy” over the past few years is not necessarily linear, according to Mikhael.
Recycling MM Therapies Deserves Consideration
In other words, CAR T cells and BsABs are not the last stop in the available lines of therapy for MM. The next best therapy is dependent on numerous considerations, including prior therapy exposure, but Mikhael pointed out that many patients in advanced stages have not been exposed to therapies known to be active or are not being considered for therapies to which they were exposed but are not necessarily resistant.
Monge made similar comments. He agreed with Mikhael that clinicians faced with a patient with multitherapy-refractory MM might forget about the XPO1 inhibitor selinexor, the alkylating agent bendamustine, or even the B-cell lymphoma 2 inhibitor venetoclax.
Any of these agents alone or in combination could be considered to “give the patient some time to improve” T-cell function, Monge said.
This approach will have even more promise if better assays of T-cell function become available, Mikhael said. Although he explained that T-cell exhaustion is clearly one of the reasons that CAR T-cell therapies stop working, this cannot be measured accurately at this time.
“Better T-cell assays may help,” he said.
Mikhael reported financial relationships with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Sanofi, and Takeda. Monge disclosed ties with Bristol Myers Squibb and Karyopharm Therapeutics.
*Correction, 10/29/24: We are correcting the name of the DREAMM-3 trial and clarifying that its failed results meant that the drug did not meet the FDA’s requirements for confirmatory trials of drugs to be approved through the agency’s accelerated approval program.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Two independent experts, addressing this issue at the 2024 Lymphoma, Leukemia & Myeloma Congress, offered several practical recommendations for eliciting a therapeutic response after patients with multi-refractory MM have failed everything. One approach they endorsed was allowing patients to recover from T-cell exhaustion.
“We used to think that as soon as multiple myeloma patients progress on a CAR T-cell therapy, it was sort of game over,” said Joseph Mikhael, MD, professor, Translational Genomics Research Institute, City of Hope Cancer Center Phoenix, Arizona.
“But I think we are seeing many ways to salvage these patients, including going back to a CAR T product,” said Mikhael, who also serves as the chief medical officer of the International Myeloma Foundation.
Now that CAR T cells and BsABs are widely available, Mikhael warned that there will be a growing need for other strategies to offer when these therapies fail.
A similar point was made by Jorge Monge, MD, an assistant professor, Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City. He largely focused on newer therapies with the potential to provide salvage opportunities in advanced refractory MM, but he pointed out that one application might be to permit T-cell recovery after exhaustion following B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)–targeted therapies.
The two talks covered some of the same ground. Both, for example, discussed a potential role for the exportin 1 (XPO1) inhibitor selinexor (Xpovio) in the multidrug refractory setting. In combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone, selinexor was approved in 2020 for treatment-experienced patients but is often overlooked in late-stage disease.
As a strategy to elicit a response following BCMA-targeted therapies, both Mikhael and Monge cited data showing selinexor to be active and that side effects are relatively well managed if antiemetics are offered preemptively to control nausea, one of its most common side effects.
Monge also talked about the promise of cereblon E3 ligase modulatory drugs (CELMoDs) that are now in clinical trials. These drugs, such as mezigdomide and iberdomide, both of which are in advanced stages of clinical testing, are similar to the immunomodulatory agents lenalidomide and pomalidomide. However, their greater potency does not appear to substantially increase risk for adverse events, according to Monge.
CELMoDs Active After CAR T-Cell Therapy
Most importantly, from the standpoint of their potential role in multidrug-refractory MM, both mezigdomide and iberdomide have so far shown substantial activity in patients previously exposed to BCMA-targeted therapies, according to Monge. Although the data have been generated in small numbers of patients, he reported that objective response rates have ranged from 37% to 50%.
These rates in treatment-experience patients are lower relative to those achieved in patients with no prior exposure to BCMA-targeted drugs, but Monge said that the durations of response, exceeding 6 months in some studies, might provide enough time for the T-cell recovery needed for a second course of CAR T-cell therapy.
There are other promising therapies on the horizon relevant to controlling multidrug refractory MM, including the likely return of the antibody drug conjugate (ADC) belantamab mafodotin (Blenrep®). This drug was withdrawn in 2022, when the DREAMM-3 trial failed to show an advantage on the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) for this drug alone over pomalidomide and dexamethasone. The failed results of the DREAMM-3 trial meant that the drug did not meet FDA requirements for confirmatory trials of drugs approved through the agency’s accelerated approval program.
However, recently published results from the phase 3 DREAMM-8 trial did show a PFS advantage for belantamab mafodotin, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone over pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone at 12 months (HR 0.50; P < .0010). On the basis of this result and other positive findings, including a deeper response, Mikhael predicted that this drug will be reintroduced.
It “might take a year or more” to find its way through the approval process, but Mikhael said that he is among those who think it will have value in advanced MM.*
Many of the newer MM drugs, including bispecifics that engage proteins on the surface of the myeloma cell other than BCMA, such as G protein–coupled receptor family C group, might provide alternatives to BCMA-targeted therapies in late stages of disease, but at least some newer drugs, as well as existing drugs in combinations, might play an important role in refractory MM by restoring BCMA as a target.
“The BCMA target is not easily lost, and I think we can leverage it more than once,” Mikhael said.
This potential, which Mikhael acknowledged is mostly supported with relatively small sets of data, involves “a lot of question marks, a lot of maybes,” so the strategies are hard to compared. However, the “incredible evolution in multiple myeloma therapy” over the past few years is not necessarily linear, according to Mikhael.
Recycling MM Therapies Deserves Consideration
In other words, CAR T cells and BsABs are not the last stop in the available lines of therapy for MM. The next best therapy is dependent on numerous considerations, including prior therapy exposure, but Mikhael pointed out that many patients in advanced stages have not been exposed to therapies known to be active or are not being considered for therapies to which they were exposed but are not necessarily resistant.
Monge made similar comments. He agreed with Mikhael that clinicians faced with a patient with multitherapy-refractory MM might forget about the XPO1 inhibitor selinexor, the alkylating agent bendamustine, or even the B-cell lymphoma 2 inhibitor venetoclax.
Any of these agents alone or in combination could be considered to “give the patient some time to improve” T-cell function, Monge said.
This approach will have even more promise if better assays of T-cell function become available, Mikhael said. Although he explained that T-cell exhaustion is clearly one of the reasons that CAR T-cell therapies stop working, this cannot be measured accurately at this time.
“Better T-cell assays may help,” he said.
Mikhael reported financial relationships with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Sanofi, and Takeda. Monge disclosed ties with Bristol Myers Squibb and Karyopharm Therapeutics.
*Correction, 10/29/24: We are correcting the name of the DREAMM-3 trial and clarifying that its failed results meant that the drug did not meet the FDA’s requirements for confirmatory trials of drugs to be approved through the agency’s accelerated approval program.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Two independent experts, addressing this issue at the 2024 Lymphoma, Leukemia & Myeloma Congress, offered several practical recommendations for eliciting a therapeutic response after patients with multi-refractory MM have failed everything. One approach they endorsed was allowing patients to recover from T-cell exhaustion.
“We used to think that as soon as multiple myeloma patients progress on a CAR T-cell therapy, it was sort of game over,” said Joseph Mikhael, MD, professor, Translational Genomics Research Institute, City of Hope Cancer Center Phoenix, Arizona.
“But I think we are seeing many ways to salvage these patients, including going back to a CAR T product,” said Mikhael, who also serves as the chief medical officer of the International Myeloma Foundation.
Now that CAR T cells and BsABs are widely available, Mikhael warned that there will be a growing need for other strategies to offer when these therapies fail.
A similar point was made by Jorge Monge, MD, an assistant professor, Division of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City. He largely focused on newer therapies with the potential to provide salvage opportunities in advanced refractory MM, but he pointed out that one application might be to permit T-cell recovery after exhaustion following B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)–targeted therapies.
The two talks covered some of the same ground. Both, for example, discussed a potential role for the exportin 1 (XPO1) inhibitor selinexor (Xpovio) in the multidrug refractory setting. In combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone, selinexor was approved in 2020 for treatment-experienced patients but is often overlooked in late-stage disease.
As a strategy to elicit a response following BCMA-targeted therapies, both Mikhael and Monge cited data showing selinexor to be active and that side effects are relatively well managed if antiemetics are offered preemptively to control nausea, one of its most common side effects.
Monge also talked about the promise of cereblon E3 ligase modulatory drugs (CELMoDs) that are now in clinical trials. These drugs, such as mezigdomide and iberdomide, both of which are in advanced stages of clinical testing, are similar to the immunomodulatory agents lenalidomide and pomalidomide. However, their greater potency does not appear to substantially increase risk for adverse events, according to Monge.
CELMoDs Active After CAR T-Cell Therapy
Most importantly, from the standpoint of their potential role in multidrug-refractory MM, both mezigdomide and iberdomide have so far shown substantial activity in patients previously exposed to BCMA-targeted therapies, according to Monge. Although the data have been generated in small numbers of patients, he reported that objective response rates have ranged from 37% to 50%.
These rates in treatment-experience patients are lower relative to those achieved in patients with no prior exposure to BCMA-targeted drugs, but Monge said that the durations of response, exceeding 6 months in some studies, might provide enough time for the T-cell recovery needed for a second course of CAR T-cell therapy.
There are other promising therapies on the horizon relevant to controlling multidrug refractory MM, including the likely return of the antibody drug conjugate (ADC) belantamab mafodotin (Blenrep®). This drug was withdrawn in 2022, when the DREAMM-3 trial failed to show an advantage on the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS) for this drug alone over pomalidomide and dexamethasone. The failed results of the DREAMM-3 trial meant that the drug did not meet FDA requirements for confirmatory trials of drugs approved through the agency’s accelerated approval program.
However, recently published results from the phase 3 DREAMM-8 trial did show a PFS advantage for belantamab mafodotin, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone over pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone at 12 months (HR 0.50; P < .0010). On the basis of this result and other positive findings, including a deeper response, Mikhael predicted that this drug will be reintroduced.
It “might take a year or more” to find its way through the approval process, but Mikhael said that he is among those who think it will have value in advanced MM.*
Many of the newer MM drugs, including bispecifics that engage proteins on the surface of the myeloma cell other than BCMA, such as G protein–coupled receptor family C group, might provide alternatives to BCMA-targeted therapies in late stages of disease, but at least some newer drugs, as well as existing drugs in combinations, might play an important role in refractory MM by restoring BCMA as a target.
“The BCMA target is not easily lost, and I think we can leverage it more than once,” Mikhael said.
This potential, which Mikhael acknowledged is mostly supported with relatively small sets of data, involves “a lot of question marks, a lot of maybes,” so the strategies are hard to compared. However, the “incredible evolution in multiple myeloma therapy” over the past few years is not necessarily linear, according to Mikhael.
Recycling MM Therapies Deserves Consideration
In other words, CAR T cells and BsABs are not the last stop in the available lines of therapy for MM. The next best therapy is dependent on numerous considerations, including prior therapy exposure, but Mikhael pointed out that many patients in advanced stages have not been exposed to therapies known to be active or are not being considered for therapies to which they were exposed but are not necessarily resistant.
Monge made similar comments. He agreed with Mikhael that clinicians faced with a patient with multitherapy-refractory MM might forget about the XPO1 inhibitor selinexor, the alkylating agent bendamustine, or even the B-cell lymphoma 2 inhibitor venetoclax.
Any of these agents alone or in combination could be considered to “give the patient some time to improve” T-cell function, Monge said.
This approach will have even more promise if better assays of T-cell function become available, Mikhael said. Although he explained that T-cell exhaustion is clearly one of the reasons that CAR T-cell therapies stop working, this cannot be measured accurately at this time.
“Better T-cell assays may help,” he said.
Mikhael reported financial relationships with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Sanofi, and Takeda. Monge disclosed ties with Bristol Myers Squibb and Karyopharm Therapeutics.
*Correction, 10/29/24: We are correcting the name of the DREAMM-3 trial and clarifying that its failed results meant that the drug did not meet the FDA’s requirements for confirmatory trials of drugs to be approved through the agency’s accelerated approval program.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
For Radiation ‘Downwinders,’ Cancer Compensation Is On Hold
As of 2022, more than 40,000 patients with cancer successfully applied for $2.6 billion in compensation. Recipients included “downwinders” who were eligible for $50,000 each if they lived in certain areas of Nevada, Utah, and Arizona during specified nuclear testing periods and developed a covered form of cancer.
In June 2024, however, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program expired amid infighting among Republicans in Congress over whether to expand it. For now, no one can make a claim, even though many downwinders are still alive and continue to be diagnosed with covered cancers decades after they were exposed in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s.
There’s a glimmer of good news. The federal government continues to support free medical screenings for eligible people, including certain downwinders and uranium workers. Meanwhile, there are still important roles for clinicians across the country to play as politicians figure out what — if anything — to do next regarding those exposed to radiation.
“We are still here. We can still screen people,” Zachary Davis, program director for the Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program, The University of New Mexico, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, said in an interview.
Still-Unfolding Legacy of Radiation Exposure
No one knew just how far radiation would spread when the first nuclear bomb was tested in New Mexico in July 1945. Would it cover the state? The entire Southwest? The whole nation?
It also wasn’t clear how radiation would affect people’s health. “There was an awareness that some cancers were caused by radiation, but there wasn’t a cohesive understanding of what the problem was,” Joseph Shonka, PhD, a health physicist who studies radiation exposure and has worked for decades in nuclear engineering, said in an interview.
Now, nearly eight decades later, scientists are still figuring out the full extent of radioactive fallout from nuclear testing. Just last year, a study suggested that radiation from 94 nuclear weapon tests in the Southwest from 1945 to 1962 reached 46 states along with Canada and Mexico.
Activists believe the tests triggered untold number of cancer cases in residents who were exposed in downwind areas:
“My brother died of stomach cancer; my mom died of bone cancer. One of my sisters is surviving brain tumors, and the other one is surviving thyroid cancer,” one New Mexico man recently told ABC-TV’s “Nightline.”
In Idaho, a downwinder advocate told Idaho Capital Sun that everyone who attended a reception for her newly married parents in 1952 — just weeks after a nuclear test — developed cancer or “weird medical complications.” That included her parents, who both had cancer. Her two older brothers, born in 1953 and 1955, also developed cancer, and she’s tracked many other cases in the small town of Emmett.
In Utah, another downwinder advocate told Utah News Dispatch that cancer was common in Salt Lake City neighborhood, where she grew up, which was exposed to fallout. She developed thyroid cancer, her younger sister developed stomach cancer, and an older sister died of lupus, which is connected to radiation exposure. But Salt Lake City isn’t in one of the regions of Utah covered by the federal compensation program, so the advocate can’t get a $50,000 payment.
Downwinders who lived in New Mexico, Idaho, and the Salt Lake City area of Utah are not covered by the federal compensation program. That means none of these people or their descendants are eligible for payments — yet.
Decades After Nuclear Testing, the Government Responds
In 1990, Congress passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, which allowed compensation to people with cancer at several levels. It was later expanded. Downwinders — including those who’ve moved elsewhere over the years — were eligible for $50,000. Onsite participants in nuclear testing could get $75,000. Uranium miners, millers, and ore transporters in 11 states west of the Mississippi River could get $100,000.
Among downwinders, eligible cancers included blood cancers (leukemias with the exception of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, multiple myeloma, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas) and a long list of solid organ cancers such as thyroid, breast, stomach, brain, lung, colon, and liver cancers.
“When it comes to blood-related cancers, we do see leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma, but these cancers were more likely to occur sooner after fallout exposure,” said Laura Shaw, MD, principal investigator who oversees the radiation exposure screening program at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. “At this point, we see more pancreatic, thyroid, lung, stomach, bladder, and breast cancer.”
The compensation program had major limitations, critics said. “It left out a lot of communities that were exposed,” said Lilly Adams, senior outreach coordinator with the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which supports expanding the program. A national nonprofit organization, UCS was founded more than 50 years ago by scientists and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
“You have this pretty small amount of one-time compensation, and that’s it,” Adams said in an interview. “You can’t get reimbursed for medical costs or lost wages.” Still, “as flawed as the program is, it’s really valuable for the people who are eligible,” she noted.
Now Congress Is Divided on Next Steps
Some lawmakers have recognized the need to do more for those who developed cancer that’s potentially linked to radiation exposure. As the June 2024 expiration of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act loomed, Democrats and Republicans in Congress worked together to extend and expand the program.
They introduced a bill for higher compensation — $100,000 per person — and the widening of covered downwinder areas to all of Arizona, Nevada, and Utah (which had only been partially covered), along with all of Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Montana, and Guam. Under the legislation, the program also would expand to cover some uranium workers who were on the job after 1971 and residents exposed to nuclear waste in Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee.
In March, the new legislation easily passed the US Senate by a vote of 69-30, with support from both political parties — but the Republican-led House hasn’t taken it up. As a result, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act expired in June, and no one can submit new applications for compensation.
A spokesman for House Speaker Mike Johnson told Missouri Independent “unfortunately, the current Senate bill is estimated to cost $50-$60 billion in new mandatory spending with no offsets and was supported by only 20 of 49 Republicans in the Senate.”
Adams rejected these arguments. “The government spends literally trillions of dollars on our nuclear weapons. Whether or not you support that spending, the human cost of building those weapons should be factored in,” she said. She added that she hopes the House will act by the end of the year to pass the bill, but that’s uncertain.
As Compensation Is On Hold, Medical Screening Continues
A major benefit is still available for downwinders and uranium workers: Free medical screening and referrals for medical treatment. The Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program’s funding has not been affected by the congressional impasse, so screenings are continuing for eligible people exposed to radiation.
Radiation exposure clinics offer screening in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah, and health providers can get funding to offer screening in other affected states.
In Nevada, “we hold screening clinics throughout the state: Caliente, Ely, and Winnemucca. Also, in Reno and Las Vegas, which are not in designated downwind areas, but many downwinders have migrated there,” said Shaw in an interview. Among downwinders, “our youngest patients are in their 60s and range up to a few in their 90s,” she said.
Patients fill out questionnaires that ask about their medical problems, family history, and medications. “Ely patients in particular seem to have extensive family histories of cancer, and this may be due to their location directly downwind of the Nevada Test Site,” Shaw said. (Ely is a remote town in central eastern Nevada near the Utah border.)
The screenings cover both cancer and noncancer conditions. Shaw said clinicians often diagnose problems other than the covered cancers — new cases of atrial fibrillation, diabetes, and hypertension. “We see a ton of prostate and skin cancer” but don’t make patients eligible for the compensation program because they’re not covered, she said.
Even as compensation is on hold, doctors can get the word out that screenings are still available, Shaw said. “We continue to get contacted by individuals who in these communities who have never heard of this program, even though we’ve been holding clinics since 2005,” Shaw said. “Despite outreach activities and advertising through newspapers and radio, we find the most successful method of reaching these patients is through word of mouth — either from other patients or their doctors. That is why we feel it is so important to reach other physicians as well.”
Affected Patients Don’t Just Live in the West
On the outreach front, clinicians in states outside of the western US region can be helpful, too. Shaw urged oncologists nationwide to ask older patients where they lived in the 1950s and 1960s. “Did they live in Nevada, Arizona, Utah, and other Western states that are downwind? They may qualify for needed services and future compensation.”
With regard to compensation, she noted that applicants need to prove that they lived in affected areas many decades ago. And, of course, they must prove that they’ve had cancer. Locating residency records “has often been an enormous challenge.” Old utility bills, pay stubs, and high school annuals can be helpful, “but these records tend to disappear. People and their families throw stuff away.”
Even proving a cancer diagnosis can be a challenge because records can be missing. In Nevada, the law says clinicians only need to keep medical records for 5 years, Shaw said. “Imaging and pathology reports are destroyed. Patients that have been diagnosed with cancer can’t prove it.”
Shaw said she hopes oncologists will offer these messages to patients: “Be an advocate for your own health and keep copies of your own records. Discuss your diagnosis with your family and contact a cancer registry if you are diagnosed with cancer.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
As of 2022, more than 40,000 patients with cancer successfully applied for $2.6 billion in compensation. Recipients included “downwinders” who were eligible for $50,000 each if they lived in certain areas of Nevada, Utah, and Arizona during specified nuclear testing periods and developed a covered form of cancer.
In June 2024, however, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program expired amid infighting among Republicans in Congress over whether to expand it. For now, no one can make a claim, even though many downwinders are still alive and continue to be diagnosed with covered cancers decades after they were exposed in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s.
There’s a glimmer of good news. The federal government continues to support free medical screenings for eligible people, including certain downwinders and uranium workers. Meanwhile, there are still important roles for clinicians across the country to play as politicians figure out what — if anything — to do next regarding those exposed to radiation.
“We are still here. We can still screen people,” Zachary Davis, program director for the Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program, The University of New Mexico, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, said in an interview.
Still-Unfolding Legacy of Radiation Exposure
No one knew just how far radiation would spread when the first nuclear bomb was tested in New Mexico in July 1945. Would it cover the state? The entire Southwest? The whole nation?
It also wasn’t clear how radiation would affect people’s health. “There was an awareness that some cancers were caused by radiation, but there wasn’t a cohesive understanding of what the problem was,” Joseph Shonka, PhD, a health physicist who studies radiation exposure and has worked for decades in nuclear engineering, said in an interview.
Now, nearly eight decades later, scientists are still figuring out the full extent of radioactive fallout from nuclear testing. Just last year, a study suggested that radiation from 94 nuclear weapon tests in the Southwest from 1945 to 1962 reached 46 states along with Canada and Mexico.
Activists believe the tests triggered untold number of cancer cases in residents who were exposed in downwind areas:
“My brother died of stomach cancer; my mom died of bone cancer. One of my sisters is surviving brain tumors, and the other one is surviving thyroid cancer,” one New Mexico man recently told ABC-TV’s “Nightline.”
In Idaho, a downwinder advocate told Idaho Capital Sun that everyone who attended a reception for her newly married parents in 1952 — just weeks after a nuclear test — developed cancer or “weird medical complications.” That included her parents, who both had cancer. Her two older brothers, born in 1953 and 1955, also developed cancer, and she’s tracked many other cases in the small town of Emmett.
In Utah, another downwinder advocate told Utah News Dispatch that cancer was common in Salt Lake City neighborhood, where she grew up, which was exposed to fallout. She developed thyroid cancer, her younger sister developed stomach cancer, and an older sister died of lupus, which is connected to radiation exposure. But Salt Lake City isn’t in one of the regions of Utah covered by the federal compensation program, so the advocate can’t get a $50,000 payment.
Downwinders who lived in New Mexico, Idaho, and the Salt Lake City area of Utah are not covered by the federal compensation program. That means none of these people or their descendants are eligible for payments — yet.
Decades After Nuclear Testing, the Government Responds
In 1990, Congress passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, which allowed compensation to people with cancer at several levels. It was later expanded. Downwinders — including those who’ve moved elsewhere over the years — were eligible for $50,000. Onsite participants in nuclear testing could get $75,000. Uranium miners, millers, and ore transporters in 11 states west of the Mississippi River could get $100,000.
Among downwinders, eligible cancers included blood cancers (leukemias with the exception of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, multiple myeloma, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas) and a long list of solid organ cancers such as thyroid, breast, stomach, brain, lung, colon, and liver cancers.
“When it comes to blood-related cancers, we do see leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma, but these cancers were more likely to occur sooner after fallout exposure,” said Laura Shaw, MD, principal investigator who oversees the radiation exposure screening program at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. “At this point, we see more pancreatic, thyroid, lung, stomach, bladder, and breast cancer.”
The compensation program had major limitations, critics said. “It left out a lot of communities that were exposed,” said Lilly Adams, senior outreach coordinator with the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which supports expanding the program. A national nonprofit organization, UCS was founded more than 50 years ago by scientists and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
“You have this pretty small amount of one-time compensation, and that’s it,” Adams said in an interview. “You can’t get reimbursed for medical costs or lost wages.” Still, “as flawed as the program is, it’s really valuable for the people who are eligible,” she noted.
Now Congress Is Divided on Next Steps
Some lawmakers have recognized the need to do more for those who developed cancer that’s potentially linked to radiation exposure. As the June 2024 expiration of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act loomed, Democrats and Republicans in Congress worked together to extend and expand the program.
They introduced a bill for higher compensation — $100,000 per person — and the widening of covered downwinder areas to all of Arizona, Nevada, and Utah (which had only been partially covered), along with all of Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Montana, and Guam. Under the legislation, the program also would expand to cover some uranium workers who were on the job after 1971 and residents exposed to nuclear waste in Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee.
In March, the new legislation easily passed the US Senate by a vote of 69-30, with support from both political parties — but the Republican-led House hasn’t taken it up. As a result, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act expired in June, and no one can submit new applications for compensation.
A spokesman for House Speaker Mike Johnson told Missouri Independent “unfortunately, the current Senate bill is estimated to cost $50-$60 billion in new mandatory spending with no offsets and was supported by only 20 of 49 Republicans in the Senate.”
Adams rejected these arguments. “The government spends literally trillions of dollars on our nuclear weapons. Whether or not you support that spending, the human cost of building those weapons should be factored in,” she said. She added that she hopes the House will act by the end of the year to pass the bill, but that’s uncertain.
As Compensation Is On Hold, Medical Screening Continues
A major benefit is still available for downwinders and uranium workers: Free medical screening and referrals for medical treatment. The Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program’s funding has not been affected by the congressional impasse, so screenings are continuing for eligible people exposed to radiation.
Radiation exposure clinics offer screening in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah, and health providers can get funding to offer screening in other affected states.
In Nevada, “we hold screening clinics throughout the state: Caliente, Ely, and Winnemucca. Also, in Reno and Las Vegas, which are not in designated downwind areas, but many downwinders have migrated there,” said Shaw in an interview. Among downwinders, “our youngest patients are in their 60s and range up to a few in their 90s,” she said.
Patients fill out questionnaires that ask about their medical problems, family history, and medications. “Ely patients in particular seem to have extensive family histories of cancer, and this may be due to their location directly downwind of the Nevada Test Site,” Shaw said. (Ely is a remote town in central eastern Nevada near the Utah border.)
The screenings cover both cancer and noncancer conditions. Shaw said clinicians often diagnose problems other than the covered cancers — new cases of atrial fibrillation, diabetes, and hypertension. “We see a ton of prostate and skin cancer” but don’t make patients eligible for the compensation program because they’re not covered, she said.
Even as compensation is on hold, doctors can get the word out that screenings are still available, Shaw said. “We continue to get contacted by individuals who in these communities who have never heard of this program, even though we’ve been holding clinics since 2005,” Shaw said. “Despite outreach activities and advertising through newspapers and radio, we find the most successful method of reaching these patients is through word of mouth — either from other patients or their doctors. That is why we feel it is so important to reach other physicians as well.”
Affected Patients Don’t Just Live in the West
On the outreach front, clinicians in states outside of the western US region can be helpful, too. Shaw urged oncologists nationwide to ask older patients where they lived in the 1950s and 1960s. “Did they live in Nevada, Arizona, Utah, and other Western states that are downwind? They may qualify for needed services and future compensation.”
With regard to compensation, she noted that applicants need to prove that they lived in affected areas many decades ago. And, of course, they must prove that they’ve had cancer. Locating residency records “has often been an enormous challenge.” Old utility bills, pay stubs, and high school annuals can be helpful, “but these records tend to disappear. People and their families throw stuff away.”
Even proving a cancer diagnosis can be a challenge because records can be missing. In Nevada, the law says clinicians only need to keep medical records for 5 years, Shaw said. “Imaging and pathology reports are destroyed. Patients that have been diagnosed with cancer can’t prove it.”
Shaw said she hopes oncologists will offer these messages to patients: “Be an advocate for your own health and keep copies of your own records. Discuss your diagnosis with your family and contact a cancer registry if you are diagnosed with cancer.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
As of 2022, more than 40,000 patients with cancer successfully applied for $2.6 billion in compensation. Recipients included “downwinders” who were eligible for $50,000 each if they lived in certain areas of Nevada, Utah, and Arizona during specified nuclear testing periods and developed a covered form of cancer.
In June 2024, however, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program expired amid infighting among Republicans in Congress over whether to expand it. For now, no one can make a claim, even though many downwinders are still alive and continue to be diagnosed with covered cancers decades after they were exposed in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s.
There’s a glimmer of good news. The federal government continues to support free medical screenings for eligible people, including certain downwinders and uranium workers. Meanwhile, there are still important roles for clinicians across the country to play as politicians figure out what — if anything — to do next regarding those exposed to radiation.
“We are still here. We can still screen people,” Zachary Davis, program director for the Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program, The University of New Mexico, in Albuquerque, New Mexico, said in an interview.
Still-Unfolding Legacy of Radiation Exposure
No one knew just how far radiation would spread when the first nuclear bomb was tested in New Mexico in July 1945. Would it cover the state? The entire Southwest? The whole nation?
It also wasn’t clear how radiation would affect people’s health. “There was an awareness that some cancers were caused by radiation, but there wasn’t a cohesive understanding of what the problem was,” Joseph Shonka, PhD, a health physicist who studies radiation exposure and has worked for decades in nuclear engineering, said in an interview.
Now, nearly eight decades later, scientists are still figuring out the full extent of radioactive fallout from nuclear testing. Just last year, a study suggested that radiation from 94 nuclear weapon tests in the Southwest from 1945 to 1962 reached 46 states along with Canada and Mexico.
Activists believe the tests triggered untold number of cancer cases in residents who were exposed in downwind areas:
“My brother died of stomach cancer; my mom died of bone cancer. One of my sisters is surviving brain tumors, and the other one is surviving thyroid cancer,” one New Mexico man recently told ABC-TV’s “Nightline.”
In Idaho, a downwinder advocate told Idaho Capital Sun that everyone who attended a reception for her newly married parents in 1952 — just weeks after a nuclear test — developed cancer or “weird medical complications.” That included her parents, who both had cancer. Her two older brothers, born in 1953 and 1955, also developed cancer, and she’s tracked many other cases in the small town of Emmett.
In Utah, another downwinder advocate told Utah News Dispatch that cancer was common in Salt Lake City neighborhood, where she grew up, which was exposed to fallout. She developed thyroid cancer, her younger sister developed stomach cancer, and an older sister died of lupus, which is connected to radiation exposure. But Salt Lake City isn’t in one of the regions of Utah covered by the federal compensation program, so the advocate can’t get a $50,000 payment.
Downwinders who lived in New Mexico, Idaho, and the Salt Lake City area of Utah are not covered by the federal compensation program. That means none of these people or their descendants are eligible for payments — yet.
Decades After Nuclear Testing, the Government Responds
In 1990, Congress passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, which allowed compensation to people with cancer at several levels. It was later expanded. Downwinders — including those who’ve moved elsewhere over the years — were eligible for $50,000. Onsite participants in nuclear testing could get $75,000. Uranium miners, millers, and ore transporters in 11 states west of the Mississippi River could get $100,000.
Among downwinders, eligible cancers included blood cancers (leukemias with the exception of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, multiple myeloma, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas) and a long list of solid organ cancers such as thyroid, breast, stomach, brain, lung, colon, and liver cancers.
“When it comes to blood-related cancers, we do see leukemias, lymphomas, and multiple myeloma, but these cancers were more likely to occur sooner after fallout exposure,” said Laura Shaw, MD, principal investigator who oversees the radiation exposure screening program at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. “At this point, we see more pancreatic, thyroid, lung, stomach, bladder, and breast cancer.”
The compensation program had major limitations, critics said. “It left out a lot of communities that were exposed,” said Lilly Adams, senior outreach coordinator with the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which supports expanding the program. A national nonprofit organization, UCS was founded more than 50 years ago by scientists and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
“You have this pretty small amount of one-time compensation, and that’s it,” Adams said in an interview. “You can’t get reimbursed for medical costs or lost wages.” Still, “as flawed as the program is, it’s really valuable for the people who are eligible,” she noted.
Now Congress Is Divided on Next Steps
Some lawmakers have recognized the need to do more for those who developed cancer that’s potentially linked to radiation exposure. As the June 2024 expiration of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act loomed, Democrats and Republicans in Congress worked together to extend and expand the program.
They introduced a bill for higher compensation — $100,000 per person — and the widening of covered downwinder areas to all of Arizona, Nevada, and Utah (which had only been partially covered), along with all of Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, Montana, and Guam. Under the legislation, the program also would expand to cover some uranium workers who were on the job after 1971 and residents exposed to nuclear waste in Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee.
In March, the new legislation easily passed the US Senate by a vote of 69-30, with support from both political parties — but the Republican-led House hasn’t taken it up. As a result, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act expired in June, and no one can submit new applications for compensation.
A spokesman for House Speaker Mike Johnson told Missouri Independent “unfortunately, the current Senate bill is estimated to cost $50-$60 billion in new mandatory spending with no offsets and was supported by only 20 of 49 Republicans in the Senate.”
Adams rejected these arguments. “The government spends literally trillions of dollars on our nuclear weapons. Whether or not you support that spending, the human cost of building those weapons should be factored in,” she said. She added that she hopes the House will act by the end of the year to pass the bill, but that’s uncertain.
As Compensation Is On Hold, Medical Screening Continues
A major benefit is still available for downwinders and uranium workers: Free medical screening and referrals for medical treatment. The Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program’s funding has not been affected by the congressional impasse, so screenings are continuing for eligible people exposed to radiation.
Radiation exposure clinics offer screening in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah, and health providers can get funding to offer screening in other affected states.
In Nevada, “we hold screening clinics throughout the state: Caliente, Ely, and Winnemucca. Also, in Reno and Las Vegas, which are not in designated downwind areas, but many downwinders have migrated there,” said Shaw in an interview. Among downwinders, “our youngest patients are in their 60s and range up to a few in their 90s,” she said.
Patients fill out questionnaires that ask about their medical problems, family history, and medications. “Ely patients in particular seem to have extensive family histories of cancer, and this may be due to their location directly downwind of the Nevada Test Site,” Shaw said. (Ely is a remote town in central eastern Nevada near the Utah border.)
The screenings cover both cancer and noncancer conditions. Shaw said clinicians often diagnose problems other than the covered cancers — new cases of atrial fibrillation, diabetes, and hypertension. “We see a ton of prostate and skin cancer” but don’t make patients eligible for the compensation program because they’re not covered, she said.
Even as compensation is on hold, doctors can get the word out that screenings are still available, Shaw said. “We continue to get contacted by individuals who in these communities who have never heard of this program, even though we’ve been holding clinics since 2005,” Shaw said. “Despite outreach activities and advertising through newspapers and radio, we find the most successful method of reaching these patients is through word of mouth — either from other patients or their doctors. That is why we feel it is so important to reach other physicians as well.”
Affected Patients Don’t Just Live in the West
On the outreach front, clinicians in states outside of the western US region can be helpful, too. Shaw urged oncologists nationwide to ask older patients where they lived in the 1950s and 1960s. “Did they live in Nevada, Arizona, Utah, and other Western states that are downwind? They may qualify for needed services and future compensation.”
With regard to compensation, she noted that applicants need to prove that they lived in affected areas many decades ago. And, of course, they must prove that they’ve had cancer. Locating residency records “has often been an enormous challenge.” Old utility bills, pay stubs, and high school annuals can be helpful, “but these records tend to disappear. People and their families throw stuff away.”
Even proving a cancer diagnosis can be a challenge because records can be missing. In Nevada, the law says clinicians only need to keep medical records for 5 years, Shaw said. “Imaging and pathology reports are destroyed. Patients that have been diagnosed with cancer can’t prove it.”
Shaw said she hopes oncologists will offer these messages to patients: “Be an advocate for your own health and keep copies of your own records. Discuss your diagnosis with your family and contact a cancer registry if you are diagnosed with cancer.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Myeloma: Isa-KRd Induction Shows High MRD Responses
“We found that this induction induced exceptionally high response and minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rates,” said first author Aurore Perrot, MD, PhD, an associate professor of hematology at the University of Toulouse in France, in presenting the findings at the annual meeting of the International Myeloma Society (IMS).
“These rates are the highest reported to date regarding MRD negativity,” she said.
The results from a first interim analysis offer encouraging groundwork in the trial that is investigating the tailoring of subsequent therapeutic choices in patients with newly diagnosed MM based on MRD status after six cycles of induction therapy.
In the standard treatment regimen of induction therapy followed by up-front autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), the use of ever-improving quadruplet regimens is bolstering prognoses, while the role of up-front ASCT continues to be debated, Perrot explained. She noted that no prospective trials have compared up-front transplant vs no transplant following a quadruplet regimen.
In reporting on the initial findings from the induction phase of the phase 3 IFM 2020-02 MIDAS study, Perrot described results among 791 transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed MM and a median age of 59 who were enrolled at 72 centers between December 2021 and July 2023.
The patients were treated with six cycles of 28 days of the Isa-KRd regimen, consisting of isatuximab 10 mg/kg (weekly for 4 weeks then biweekly), carfilzomib 20 mg/m2 on day 1 cycle 1, then 56 mg/m2 (days 1, 8, and 15), lenalidomide 25 mg/d (from day 1 to day 21), and dexamethasone at 40 mg/wk.
Overall, MM was classified as International Staging System (ISS) III in 120 patients (15%) and revised-ISS III in 76 (10%) patients.
Of 757 patients undergoing cytogenetics, 8% were considered high risk on the basis of a linear predictor score > 1, while the t(11;14) translocation, a chromosomal abnormality, was present in 26% of patients.
Extramedullary disease was present in five patients, while 53 (7%) had circulating plasma cells.
All 791 patients initiated Isa-KRd induction, and most (766, 97%) had at least one peripheral stem cell mobilization course, with 761 having at least one apheresis. The median number of CD34+ cells collected was 7.106/kg.
The peripheral stem cells collected allowed for potential tandem transplants in 719 patients. In total, 757 patients completed six cycles of Isa-KRd, with an overall response rate of 95%.
In the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, a very good partial response or better was achieved in 92% of patients following induction, with a rate of 99% in the per-protocol [PP] population.
Of 751 patients in the post-induction ITT population, the MRD negativity rates were 63% at the threshold of 10−5 and 47% at the threshold of 10−6, with corresponding rates of 66% and 50%, respectively, in the PP population.
The rates of near-complete response and complete response were 64% and 66% in the ITT population, and 69% and 71% in the PP population.
Of note, no significant differences were observed in prognostic subgroups, with a trend for a higher MRD negative rate among poorer prognostic groups, Perrot said.
However, notable variability was observed in terms of MRD negativity at 10−5 after induction among some cytogenic groups, with an MRD negativity rate as high as 81% among patients with the t(4;14) translocation vs 62% among those without the abnormality (P = .002), while it was only 40% among patients with the t(11;14) translocation vs 64% without (P < .0001).
“This is the first time we have observed this correlation between the MRD negativity and these cytogenetic subgroups,” Perrot noted.
“For the moment, we are not saying that patients with the t(11;14) translocation have a poor prognosis,” she added. “But just that the early assessment of MRD shows the lower negativity rates.”
Safety
Seven patients experienced disease progression and five died during induction, with one dying from disease progression, two deaths related to cardiac adverse events (AEs), and two related to other AEs.
In terms of safety, the most common grade 3-4 AEs were neutropenia (25%), thrombocytopenia (5%), and infections (7%).
Peripheral neuropathy was reported among 13% of patients at any grade, and less than 1% grade 3-4.
“Our findings confirm that six cycles of Isa-KRd induce exceptionally high response and MRD negativity rates, not only at a sensitivity of 10−5 but also at 10−6,” Perrot said.
She noted that, in comparison, the MRD negativity rate at 10−5 in the related CASSIOPEIA, GRIFFIN, and IsKia trials were 35%, 22%, and 45%, respectively.
“A longer follow-up is needed to better interpret the significance of achieving MRD negativity in patients with different cytogenetic abnormalities,” Perrot added.
“Importantly, the Isa-KRd induction ensures successful stem cell collection, with no new safety signals,” she said.
The Isa-KRd regimen is not yet approved, hence only used in clinical trials, but Perrot told this publication the current evidence should help change that.
“The IsKia trial is comparing KRd and Isa-KRd, and Sanofi should try to approve the combo,” she said. “We hope the Midas data will support this approval.”
Questions Aplenty Moving Ahead
While the results are just the first from the ongoing trial, interest in the study and its design is high, Joseph Mikhael, MD, chief medical officer of the International Myeloma Foundation, told this publication.
“To have a large trial algorithm that is based on response and in particular MRD is novel and reflects the power of MRD in myeloma,” said Mikhael, a professor of applied cancer research and drug discovery at the Translational Genomics Research Institute, City of Hope Cancer Center, Phoenix, Arizona.
“Although the results are preliminary, these kinds of trials can inform our approach to MRD testing and may result in more personalized and effective treatments for patients,” he said. “This may include the potential to de-escalate or even stop therapies that have historically been given for longer or provide more intense therapies for patients with inadequate response.”
“We know the biology of myeloma is ‘one size fits all’, so the design of our trials should reflect that heterogeneity.”
Further commenting on the research, the meeting discussant Sagar Lonial, MD, professor and chair of the Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology and the Anne and Bernard Gray Professor in Cancer at the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, offered cautious optimism.
Referencing the tale of Midas in Greek mythology as having a “be careful what you wish for” lesson, Lonial pondered that, likewise, a question that may be considered regarding MRD is “whether this is in fact a gift — or could this be a curse that’s going to get us into trouble at some point down the road. I don’t know the answer.”
Some cautionary lessons include prior research indicating that patients with high-risk disease may achieve a complete remission early — but they lose remission earlier down the road, he noted.
Other considerations as the research moves forward: “Recognizing that MRD may in fact be more important than genetics — which is a premise of the current trial,” Lonial pondered. “Does MRD override genetics, or do they travel together?”
The study is ongoing, with future results expected in terms of ASCT vs no ASCT for patients with high and low risk, as well as single vs tandem ASCT.
The trial received financial support from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Sanofi. Perrot reported ties with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Sanofi. Mikhael disclosed ties with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Sanofi. Lonial reported relationships with Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“We found that this induction induced exceptionally high response and minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rates,” said first author Aurore Perrot, MD, PhD, an associate professor of hematology at the University of Toulouse in France, in presenting the findings at the annual meeting of the International Myeloma Society (IMS).
“These rates are the highest reported to date regarding MRD negativity,” she said.
The results from a first interim analysis offer encouraging groundwork in the trial that is investigating the tailoring of subsequent therapeutic choices in patients with newly diagnosed MM based on MRD status after six cycles of induction therapy.
In the standard treatment regimen of induction therapy followed by up-front autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), the use of ever-improving quadruplet regimens is bolstering prognoses, while the role of up-front ASCT continues to be debated, Perrot explained. She noted that no prospective trials have compared up-front transplant vs no transplant following a quadruplet regimen.
In reporting on the initial findings from the induction phase of the phase 3 IFM 2020-02 MIDAS study, Perrot described results among 791 transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed MM and a median age of 59 who were enrolled at 72 centers between December 2021 and July 2023.
The patients were treated with six cycles of 28 days of the Isa-KRd regimen, consisting of isatuximab 10 mg/kg (weekly for 4 weeks then biweekly), carfilzomib 20 mg/m2 on day 1 cycle 1, then 56 mg/m2 (days 1, 8, and 15), lenalidomide 25 mg/d (from day 1 to day 21), and dexamethasone at 40 mg/wk.
Overall, MM was classified as International Staging System (ISS) III in 120 patients (15%) and revised-ISS III in 76 (10%) patients.
Of 757 patients undergoing cytogenetics, 8% were considered high risk on the basis of a linear predictor score > 1, while the t(11;14) translocation, a chromosomal abnormality, was present in 26% of patients.
Extramedullary disease was present in five patients, while 53 (7%) had circulating plasma cells.
All 791 patients initiated Isa-KRd induction, and most (766, 97%) had at least one peripheral stem cell mobilization course, with 761 having at least one apheresis. The median number of CD34+ cells collected was 7.106/kg.
The peripheral stem cells collected allowed for potential tandem transplants in 719 patients. In total, 757 patients completed six cycles of Isa-KRd, with an overall response rate of 95%.
In the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, a very good partial response or better was achieved in 92% of patients following induction, with a rate of 99% in the per-protocol [PP] population.
Of 751 patients in the post-induction ITT population, the MRD negativity rates were 63% at the threshold of 10−5 and 47% at the threshold of 10−6, with corresponding rates of 66% and 50%, respectively, in the PP population.
The rates of near-complete response and complete response were 64% and 66% in the ITT population, and 69% and 71% in the PP population.
Of note, no significant differences were observed in prognostic subgroups, with a trend for a higher MRD negative rate among poorer prognostic groups, Perrot said.
However, notable variability was observed in terms of MRD negativity at 10−5 after induction among some cytogenic groups, with an MRD negativity rate as high as 81% among patients with the t(4;14) translocation vs 62% among those without the abnormality (P = .002), while it was only 40% among patients with the t(11;14) translocation vs 64% without (P < .0001).
“This is the first time we have observed this correlation between the MRD negativity and these cytogenetic subgroups,” Perrot noted.
“For the moment, we are not saying that patients with the t(11;14) translocation have a poor prognosis,” she added. “But just that the early assessment of MRD shows the lower negativity rates.”
Safety
Seven patients experienced disease progression and five died during induction, with one dying from disease progression, two deaths related to cardiac adverse events (AEs), and two related to other AEs.
In terms of safety, the most common grade 3-4 AEs were neutropenia (25%), thrombocytopenia (5%), and infections (7%).
Peripheral neuropathy was reported among 13% of patients at any grade, and less than 1% grade 3-4.
“Our findings confirm that six cycles of Isa-KRd induce exceptionally high response and MRD negativity rates, not only at a sensitivity of 10−5 but also at 10−6,” Perrot said.
She noted that, in comparison, the MRD negativity rate at 10−5 in the related CASSIOPEIA, GRIFFIN, and IsKia trials were 35%, 22%, and 45%, respectively.
“A longer follow-up is needed to better interpret the significance of achieving MRD negativity in patients with different cytogenetic abnormalities,” Perrot added.
“Importantly, the Isa-KRd induction ensures successful stem cell collection, with no new safety signals,” she said.
The Isa-KRd regimen is not yet approved, hence only used in clinical trials, but Perrot told this publication the current evidence should help change that.
“The IsKia trial is comparing KRd and Isa-KRd, and Sanofi should try to approve the combo,” she said. “We hope the Midas data will support this approval.”
Questions Aplenty Moving Ahead
While the results are just the first from the ongoing trial, interest in the study and its design is high, Joseph Mikhael, MD, chief medical officer of the International Myeloma Foundation, told this publication.
“To have a large trial algorithm that is based on response and in particular MRD is novel and reflects the power of MRD in myeloma,” said Mikhael, a professor of applied cancer research and drug discovery at the Translational Genomics Research Institute, City of Hope Cancer Center, Phoenix, Arizona.
“Although the results are preliminary, these kinds of trials can inform our approach to MRD testing and may result in more personalized and effective treatments for patients,” he said. “This may include the potential to de-escalate or even stop therapies that have historically been given for longer or provide more intense therapies for patients with inadequate response.”
“We know the biology of myeloma is ‘one size fits all’, so the design of our trials should reflect that heterogeneity.”
Further commenting on the research, the meeting discussant Sagar Lonial, MD, professor and chair of the Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology and the Anne and Bernard Gray Professor in Cancer at the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, offered cautious optimism.
Referencing the tale of Midas in Greek mythology as having a “be careful what you wish for” lesson, Lonial pondered that, likewise, a question that may be considered regarding MRD is “whether this is in fact a gift — or could this be a curse that’s going to get us into trouble at some point down the road. I don’t know the answer.”
Some cautionary lessons include prior research indicating that patients with high-risk disease may achieve a complete remission early — but they lose remission earlier down the road, he noted.
Other considerations as the research moves forward: “Recognizing that MRD may in fact be more important than genetics — which is a premise of the current trial,” Lonial pondered. “Does MRD override genetics, or do they travel together?”
The study is ongoing, with future results expected in terms of ASCT vs no ASCT for patients with high and low risk, as well as single vs tandem ASCT.
The trial received financial support from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Sanofi. Perrot reported ties with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Sanofi. Mikhael disclosed ties with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Sanofi. Lonial reported relationships with Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“We found that this induction induced exceptionally high response and minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rates,” said first author Aurore Perrot, MD, PhD, an associate professor of hematology at the University of Toulouse in France, in presenting the findings at the annual meeting of the International Myeloma Society (IMS).
“These rates are the highest reported to date regarding MRD negativity,” she said.
The results from a first interim analysis offer encouraging groundwork in the trial that is investigating the tailoring of subsequent therapeutic choices in patients with newly diagnosed MM based on MRD status after six cycles of induction therapy.
In the standard treatment regimen of induction therapy followed by up-front autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), the use of ever-improving quadruplet regimens is bolstering prognoses, while the role of up-front ASCT continues to be debated, Perrot explained. She noted that no prospective trials have compared up-front transplant vs no transplant following a quadruplet regimen.
In reporting on the initial findings from the induction phase of the phase 3 IFM 2020-02 MIDAS study, Perrot described results among 791 transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed MM and a median age of 59 who were enrolled at 72 centers between December 2021 and July 2023.
The patients were treated with six cycles of 28 days of the Isa-KRd regimen, consisting of isatuximab 10 mg/kg (weekly for 4 weeks then biweekly), carfilzomib 20 mg/m2 on day 1 cycle 1, then 56 mg/m2 (days 1, 8, and 15), lenalidomide 25 mg/d (from day 1 to day 21), and dexamethasone at 40 mg/wk.
Overall, MM was classified as International Staging System (ISS) III in 120 patients (15%) and revised-ISS III in 76 (10%) patients.
Of 757 patients undergoing cytogenetics, 8% were considered high risk on the basis of a linear predictor score > 1, while the t(11;14) translocation, a chromosomal abnormality, was present in 26% of patients.
Extramedullary disease was present in five patients, while 53 (7%) had circulating plasma cells.
All 791 patients initiated Isa-KRd induction, and most (766, 97%) had at least one peripheral stem cell mobilization course, with 761 having at least one apheresis. The median number of CD34+ cells collected was 7.106/kg.
The peripheral stem cells collected allowed for potential tandem transplants in 719 patients. In total, 757 patients completed six cycles of Isa-KRd, with an overall response rate of 95%.
In the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, a very good partial response or better was achieved in 92% of patients following induction, with a rate of 99% in the per-protocol [PP] population.
Of 751 patients in the post-induction ITT population, the MRD negativity rates were 63% at the threshold of 10−5 and 47% at the threshold of 10−6, with corresponding rates of 66% and 50%, respectively, in the PP population.
The rates of near-complete response and complete response were 64% and 66% in the ITT population, and 69% and 71% in the PP population.
Of note, no significant differences were observed in prognostic subgroups, with a trend for a higher MRD negative rate among poorer prognostic groups, Perrot said.
However, notable variability was observed in terms of MRD negativity at 10−5 after induction among some cytogenic groups, with an MRD negativity rate as high as 81% among patients with the t(4;14) translocation vs 62% among those without the abnormality (P = .002), while it was only 40% among patients with the t(11;14) translocation vs 64% without (P < .0001).
“This is the first time we have observed this correlation between the MRD negativity and these cytogenetic subgroups,” Perrot noted.
“For the moment, we are not saying that patients with the t(11;14) translocation have a poor prognosis,” she added. “But just that the early assessment of MRD shows the lower negativity rates.”
Safety
Seven patients experienced disease progression and five died during induction, with one dying from disease progression, two deaths related to cardiac adverse events (AEs), and two related to other AEs.
In terms of safety, the most common grade 3-4 AEs were neutropenia (25%), thrombocytopenia (5%), and infections (7%).
Peripheral neuropathy was reported among 13% of patients at any grade, and less than 1% grade 3-4.
“Our findings confirm that six cycles of Isa-KRd induce exceptionally high response and MRD negativity rates, not only at a sensitivity of 10−5 but also at 10−6,” Perrot said.
She noted that, in comparison, the MRD negativity rate at 10−5 in the related CASSIOPEIA, GRIFFIN, and IsKia trials were 35%, 22%, and 45%, respectively.
“A longer follow-up is needed to better interpret the significance of achieving MRD negativity in patients with different cytogenetic abnormalities,” Perrot added.
“Importantly, the Isa-KRd induction ensures successful stem cell collection, with no new safety signals,” she said.
The Isa-KRd regimen is not yet approved, hence only used in clinical trials, but Perrot told this publication the current evidence should help change that.
“The IsKia trial is comparing KRd and Isa-KRd, and Sanofi should try to approve the combo,” she said. “We hope the Midas data will support this approval.”
Questions Aplenty Moving Ahead
While the results are just the first from the ongoing trial, interest in the study and its design is high, Joseph Mikhael, MD, chief medical officer of the International Myeloma Foundation, told this publication.
“To have a large trial algorithm that is based on response and in particular MRD is novel and reflects the power of MRD in myeloma,” said Mikhael, a professor of applied cancer research and drug discovery at the Translational Genomics Research Institute, City of Hope Cancer Center, Phoenix, Arizona.
“Although the results are preliminary, these kinds of trials can inform our approach to MRD testing and may result in more personalized and effective treatments for patients,” he said. “This may include the potential to de-escalate or even stop therapies that have historically been given for longer or provide more intense therapies for patients with inadequate response.”
“We know the biology of myeloma is ‘one size fits all’, so the design of our trials should reflect that heterogeneity.”
Further commenting on the research, the meeting discussant Sagar Lonial, MD, professor and chair of the Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology and the Anne and Bernard Gray Professor in Cancer at the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, offered cautious optimism.
Referencing the tale of Midas in Greek mythology as having a “be careful what you wish for” lesson, Lonial pondered that, likewise, a question that may be considered regarding MRD is “whether this is in fact a gift — or could this be a curse that’s going to get us into trouble at some point down the road. I don’t know the answer.”
Some cautionary lessons include prior research indicating that patients with high-risk disease may achieve a complete remission early — but they lose remission earlier down the road, he noted.
Other considerations as the research moves forward: “Recognizing that MRD may in fact be more important than genetics — which is a premise of the current trial,” Lonial pondered. “Does MRD override genetics, or do they travel together?”
The study is ongoing, with future results expected in terms of ASCT vs no ASCT for patients with high and low risk, as well as single vs tandem ASCT.
The trial received financial support from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Sanofi. Perrot reported ties with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Sanofi. Mikhael disclosed ties with Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Sanofi. Lonial reported relationships with Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, and Sanofi.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM IMS 2024
Isatuximab Quadruplet Approval Could Change the Landscape for Treating Myeloma
The findings, presented on September 26 at the annual meeting of the International Myeloma Society, support the four-drug combination known as Isa-VRd as a potential new standard of care (SOC) supplanting VRd alone as the SOC in this setting, according to Meletios Dimopoulos, MD, of the University of Athens, Greece.
The IMROZ findings — the first from a phase 3 study of an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody given in combination with VRd — were also reported in May at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.
“The significant progression-free benefit observed with Sarclisa with combination therapy compared to VRd is important and encouraging for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma,” first author Thierry Facon, MD, told this news organization at ASCO.
Dr. Thierry, of the University of Lille, and the French Academy of Medicine in Paris, France, added that Isa-VRd has the potential as “a first-in-class combination to address gaps in care for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma transplant-ineligible patients.”
Isatuximab in combination with VRd was subsequently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for this indication, as reported on September 23 by this news organization.
So, what will this quadruplet mean for the treatment of multiple myeloma? IMROZ study coauthors Meral Beksac, MD, of Istinye University, Istanbul, and Liv Hospital Ankara, Turkey, and Mohamad Mohty, MD, of Sorbonne University, Saint-Antoine Hospital, Paris, France, provided some insights in a recent interview, telling the European Medical Journal (EMJ) Hematology that Isa-VRd is a “welcome addition” to the multiple myeloma armamentarium.
Should Isa-VRd Be Considered the New First-Choice Frontline Treatment for Transplant-Ineligible Patients?
“The short answer is yes,” Dr. Mohty told EMJ. “Based on this trial, quadruplet should become the preferred regimen in the population of patients represented by these inclusion criteria.”
Dr. Beksac agreed that Isa-VRd will play a role in frontline management for transplant-ineligible patients.
However, both noted that despite having a favorable safety profile similar to VRd, Isa-VRd may not be well tolerated in elderly and frail patients. Demonstrably frail patients were excluded from IMROZ, and this is a factor that should be considered in the practice setting, they agreed.
Will Isa-VRd Change How Patients Are Evaluated for Transplant Eligibility?
“The cutoff for transplant eligibility differs from one country to another, and today, we do not have consensus around an agreed-upon age limit,” Dr. Beksac said. “We further rely on frailty and the patient’s performance status, not only at diagnosis but at later stages as well.”
She also noted that “[t]he introduction of very effective systemic regimens with similar efficacy to [hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT)] has seen a shift towards non-transplant regimens, particularly in the USA.”
“In many centers in Europe, these patients [in IMROZ] would be considered transplant eligible. Hence, for this group of patients who are not too old, but not too young, and fit, IMROZ is offering a non-transplant-based treatment with similar efficacy to what can be achieved with HSCT,” Dr. Mohty added.
Patient preference and access are also important considerations, as is cost, he noted.
Younger transplant-eligible patients may prefer transplant over continuous treatment for life, whereas some might prefer long-term treatment over a stem cell protocol that will require months off of work, he and Dr. Beksac explained.
“Based on this trial, we will likely see a decline in the number of transplants,” Dr. Mohty predicted. “With the IMROZ data, we have something valid that we can offer patients without any prejudice to their outcome.”
How Will This Combination Be Integrated Into Daily Clinical Practice?
“My interpretation would be that this protocol will be conceived as an applicable protocol that can be adapted to our daily practice,” Dr. Beksac said.
Dr. Mohty added that the multiple myeloma story is changing and evolving.
“It’s not transplant versus no transplant, it’s who is going to receive quadruplet and who’s going to receive less than a quadruplet, who is fit and who is unfit,” he explained, adding that physicians will likely adapt the Isa-VRd regimen for real-world use based on clinical judgment.
For example, the quadruplet may be combined “in a kind of VRd-light version to start with, and maybe we can adapt later depending on the tolerability of the patient,” Dr. Beksac added.
“Until recently, we thought that transplant is the gold standard for everybody whenever possible. Now, we have a more nuanced answer, offering a regimen that actually is as effective, and may even be better, than transplant,” Dr. Mohty said. “So, it’s a most welcome addition to what we do.”
Both the IMROZ study and the EMJ article were funded by Sanofi.
Dr. Dimopoulos reported ties with Amgen, BeiGene, BMS, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda. Dr. Beksac disclosed relationships with Amgen, BMS, GSK, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda. Dr. Mohty reported ties with Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, Astellas Pharma, BMS, GSK, Janssen-Cilag, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and others.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The findings, presented on September 26 at the annual meeting of the International Myeloma Society, support the four-drug combination known as Isa-VRd as a potential new standard of care (SOC) supplanting VRd alone as the SOC in this setting, according to Meletios Dimopoulos, MD, of the University of Athens, Greece.
The IMROZ findings — the first from a phase 3 study of an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody given in combination with VRd — were also reported in May at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.
“The significant progression-free benefit observed with Sarclisa with combination therapy compared to VRd is important and encouraging for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma,” first author Thierry Facon, MD, told this news organization at ASCO.
Dr. Thierry, of the University of Lille, and the French Academy of Medicine in Paris, France, added that Isa-VRd has the potential as “a first-in-class combination to address gaps in care for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma transplant-ineligible patients.”
Isatuximab in combination with VRd was subsequently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for this indication, as reported on September 23 by this news organization.
So, what will this quadruplet mean for the treatment of multiple myeloma? IMROZ study coauthors Meral Beksac, MD, of Istinye University, Istanbul, and Liv Hospital Ankara, Turkey, and Mohamad Mohty, MD, of Sorbonne University, Saint-Antoine Hospital, Paris, France, provided some insights in a recent interview, telling the European Medical Journal (EMJ) Hematology that Isa-VRd is a “welcome addition” to the multiple myeloma armamentarium.
Should Isa-VRd Be Considered the New First-Choice Frontline Treatment for Transplant-Ineligible Patients?
“The short answer is yes,” Dr. Mohty told EMJ. “Based on this trial, quadruplet should become the preferred regimen in the population of patients represented by these inclusion criteria.”
Dr. Beksac agreed that Isa-VRd will play a role in frontline management for transplant-ineligible patients.
However, both noted that despite having a favorable safety profile similar to VRd, Isa-VRd may not be well tolerated in elderly and frail patients. Demonstrably frail patients were excluded from IMROZ, and this is a factor that should be considered in the practice setting, they agreed.
Will Isa-VRd Change How Patients Are Evaluated for Transplant Eligibility?
“The cutoff for transplant eligibility differs from one country to another, and today, we do not have consensus around an agreed-upon age limit,” Dr. Beksac said. “We further rely on frailty and the patient’s performance status, not only at diagnosis but at later stages as well.”
She also noted that “[t]he introduction of very effective systemic regimens with similar efficacy to [hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT)] has seen a shift towards non-transplant regimens, particularly in the USA.”
“In many centers in Europe, these patients [in IMROZ] would be considered transplant eligible. Hence, for this group of patients who are not too old, but not too young, and fit, IMROZ is offering a non-transplant-based treatment with similar efficacy to what can be achieved with HSCT,” Dr. Mohty added.
Patient preference and access are also important considerations, as is cost, he noted.
Younger transplant-eligible patients may prefer transplant over continuous treatment for life, whereas some might prefer long-term treatment over a stem cell protocol that will require months off of work, he and Dr. Beksac explained.
“Based on this trial, we will likely see a decline in the number of transplants,” Dr. Mohty predicted. “With the IMROZ data, we have something valid that we can offer patients without any prejudice to their outcome.”
How Will This Combination Be Integrated Into Daily Clinical Practice?
“My interpretation would be that this protocol will be conceived as an applicable protocol that can be adapted to our daily practice,” Dr. Beksac said.
Dr. Mohty added that the multiple myeloma story is changing and evolving.
“It’s not transplant versus no transplant, it’s who is going to receive quadruplet and who’s going to receive less than a quadruplet, who is fit and who is unfit,” he explained, adding that physicians will likely adapt the Isa-VRd regimen for real-world use based on clinical judgment.
For example, the quadruplet may be combined “in a kind of VRd-light version to start with, and maybe we can adapt later depending on the tolerability of the patient,” Dr. Beksac added.
“Until recently, we thought that transplant is the gold standard for everybody whenever possible. Now, we have a more nuanced answer, offering a regimen that actually is as effective, and may even be better, than transplant,” Dr. Mohty said. “So, it’s a most welcome addition to what we do.”
Both the IMROZ study and the EMJ article were funded by Sanofi.
Dr. Dimopoulos reported ties with Amgen, BeiGene, BMS, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda. Dr. Beksac disclosed relationships with Amgen, BMS, GSK, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda. Dr. Mohty reported ties with Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, Astellas Pharma, BMS, GSK, Janssen-Cilag, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and others.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The findings, presented on September 26 at the annual meeting of the International Myeloma Society, support the four-drug combination known as Isa-VRd as a potential new standard of care (SOC) supplanting VRd alone as the SOC in this setting, according to Meletios Dimopoulos, MD, of the University of Athens, Greece.
The IMROZ findings — the first from a phase 3 study of an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody given in combination with VRd — were also reported in May at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and published simultaneously in The New England Journal of Medicine.
“The significant progression-free benefit observed with Sarclisa with combination therapy compared to VRd is important and encouraging for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma,” first author Thierry Facon, MD, told this news organization at ASCO.
Dr. Thierry, of the University of Lille, and the French Academy of Medicine in Paris, France, added that Isa-VRd has the potential as “a first-in-class combination to address gaps in care for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma transplant-ineligible patients.”
Isatuximab in combination with VRd was subsequently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for this indication, as reported on September 23 by this news organization.
So, what will this quadruplet mean for the treatment of multiple myeloma? IMROZ study coauthors Meral Beksac, MD, of Istinye University, Istanbul, and Liv Hospital Ankara, Turkey, and Mohamad Mohty, MD, of Sorbonne University, Saint-Antoine Hospital, Paris, France, provided some insights in a recent interview, telling the European Medical Journal (EMJ) Hematology that Isa-VRd is a “welcome addition” to the multiple myeloma armamentarium.
Should Isa-VRd Be Considered the New First-Choice Frontline Treatment for Transplant-Ineligible Patients?
“The short answer is yes,” Dr. Mohty told EMJ. “Based on this trial, quadruplet should become the preferred regimen in the population of patients represented by these inclusion criteria.”
Dr. Beksac agreed that Isa-VRd will play a role in frontline management for transplant-ineligible patients.
However, both noted that despite having a favorable safety profile similar to VRd, Isa-VRd may not be well tolerated in elderly and frail patients. Demonstrably frail patients were excluded from IMROZ, and this is a factor that should be considered in the practice setting, they agreed.
Will Isa-VRd Change How Patients Are Evaluated for Transplant Eligibility?
“The cutoff for transplant eligibility differs from one country to another, and today, we do not have consensus around an agreed-upon age limit,” Dr. Beksac said. “We further rely on frailty and the patient’s performance status, not only at diagnosis but at later stages as well.”
She also noted that “[t]he introduction of very effective systemic regimens with similar efficacy to [hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT)] has seen a shift towards non-transplant regimens, particularly in the USA.”
“In many centers in Europe, these patients [in IMROZ] would be considered transplant eligible. Hence, for this group of patients who are not too old, but not too young, and fit, IMROZ is offering a non-transplant-based treatment with similar efficacy to what can be achieved with HSCT,” Dr. Mohty added.
Patient preference and access are also important considerations, as is cost, he noted.
Younger transplant-eligible patients may prefer transplant over continuous treatment for life, whereas some might prefer long-term treatment over a stem cell protocol that will require months off of work, he and Dr. Beksac explained.
“Based on this trial, we will likely see a decline in the number of transplants,” Dr. Mohty predicted. “With the IMROZ data, we have something valid that we can offer patients without any prejudice to their outcome.”
How Will This Combination Be Integrated Into Daily Clinical Practice?
“My interpretation would be that this protocol will be conceived as an applicable protocol that can be adapted to our daily practice,” Dr. Beksac said.
Dr. Mohty added that the multiple myeloma story is changing and evolving.
“It’s not transplant versus no transplant, it’s who is going to receive quadruplet and who’s going to receive less than a quadruplet, who is fit and who is unfit,” he explained, adding that physicians will likely adapt the Isa-VRd regimen for real-world use based on clinical judgment.
For example, the quadruplet may be combined “in a kind of VRd-light version to start with, and maybe we can adapt later depending on the tolerability of the patient,” Dr. Beksac added.
“Until recently, we thought that transplant is the gold standard for everybody whenever possible. Now, we have a more nuanced answer, offering a regimen that actually is as effective, and may even be better, than transplant,” Dr. Mohty said. “So, it’s a most welcome addition to what we do.”
Both the IMROZ study and the EMJ article were funded by Sanofi.
Dr. Dimopoulos reported ties with Amgen, BeiGene, BMS, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda. Dr. Beksac disclosed relationships with Amgen, BMS, GSK, Janssen, Sanofi, and Takeda. Dr. Mohty reported ties with Adaptive Biotechnologies, Amgen, Astellas Pharma, BMS, GSK, Janssen-Cilag, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and others.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM IMS 2024