Fredrik Schjesvold, MD, PhD, Discusses the Importance of Subgroups When Utilizing Melflufen/Dexamethasone in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Video

CancerNetwork® sat down with Fredrik Schjesvold, MD, PhD, at the 2021 International Myeloma Workshop to talk about importance of subgroups when administering melflufen and dexamethasone to patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

At the 2021 International Myeloma Workshop, CancerNetwork® spoke with Fredrik Schjesvold, MD, PhD, founder and head of the Oslo Myeloma Center, about the importance of subgroups when treating patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma with melflufen (Pepaxto) and dexamethasone, as seen in the phase 3 OCEAN trial (NCT03151811).

Transcript:

What I hope [my colleagues] really understood is that you cannot only look at the intention to treat overall survival; you have to look at the patient groups with and without the transplant because they [are very different]. That is the most important takeaway. An increased [progression-free survival] in the total population doesn’t help if there’s an [overall survival] detriment, but there isn’t if you look at the non-transplanted patients. That is a major communication issue now is to look beyond the partial clinical hold because of the slight increase in mortality in the total population and look at the patients who really benefit from this treatment.

Reference

Schjesvold F, Dimopoulos MA, Delimpasi S, et al. OCEAN (OP-103): a Phase 3, randomized, global, head-to-head comparison study of melflufen and dexamethasone (Dex) versus pomalidomide (Pom) and dex in relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Presented at: International Myeloma Workshop; September 8-11, 2021; Vienna, Austria. Accessed September 11, 2021.

Recent Videos
A third of patients had a response [to lifileucel], and of the patients who have a response, half of them were alive at the 4-year follow-up.
We are seeing that, in those patients who have relapsed/refractory melanoma with survival measured as a few weeks and no effective treatments, about a third of these patients will have a response.
We have the current CAR [T-cell therapies], which target CD19; however, we need others.
“Every patient [with multiple myeloma] should be offered CAR T before they’re offered a bispecific, with some rare exceptions,” said Barry Paul, MD.
Barry Paul, MD, listed cilta-cel, anito-cel, and arlo-cel as 3 of the CAR T-cell therapies with the most promising efficacy in patients with multiple myeloma.
Jose Sandoval Sus, MD, discussed standard CAR T-cell therapies in patients across multiple high-risk lymphoma indications.
Elucidating nonresponses to bispecific T-cell engagers may be an important research consideration in the multiple myeloma field.
Barriers to access and financial toxicities are challenges that must be addressed for CAR T-cell therapies in LBCL, according to Jose Sandoval Sus, MD.
Fixed treatment durations with bispecific antibodies followed by observation may help in mitigating infection-related AEs, according to Shebli Atrash, MD.
Shebli Atrash, MD, stated that MRD should be considered carefully as an end point, given potential recurrence despite MRD negativity.
Related Content