Fredrik Schjesvold, MD, PhD, Discusses the Rationale for the OCEAN Trial in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Video

Fredrik Schjesvold, MD, PhD, speaks about the FDA approval of melflufen in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma and its next phase of development at the 2021 International Myeloma Workshop.

At the 2021 International Myeloma Workshop, CancerNetwork® spoke with Fredrik Schjesvold, MD, PhD, founder and head of the Oslo Myeloma Center, about the rationale for the phase 3 OCEAN trial (NCT03151811), and why investigators decided to examine melflufen (Pepaxto) in combination with dexamethasone compared with pomalidomide (Pomalyst)/dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Transcript:

The rationale [behind the] OCEAN trial was to take the drug melflufen that was already approved in the [United States] for patients who have received at least 4 previous lines of treatment. The next phase in the development of treatment was to compare this in an earlier line of treatment [with] the standard pomalidomide/dexamethasone in patients who are already lenalidomide [Revlimid] refractory and exposed to proteasome inhibitors. …The study was to show that [melflufen/dexamethasone is better than pomalidomide/dexamethasone.

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