Fredrik Schjesvold, MD, PhD, Discusses the Safety Profile of Melflufen/Dexamethasone in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Video

CancerNetwork® sat down with Fredrik Schjesvold, MD, PhD, at the 2021 International Myeloma Workshop to discuss the differences in safety profiles between melflufen/dexamethasone and pomalidomide/dexamethasone in 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 differences in safety profile between melflufen (Pepaxto)/dexamethasone and pomalidomide (Pomalyst)/dexamethasone, as seen in the phase 3 OCEAN trial (NCT03151811).

Transcript:

[Regarding the safety profile], there were differences, mainly in cytopenias where there were more cytopenias of all kinds for melflufen. [However], there were more infections in the pomalidomide arm. It seems that an increase in neutropenia doesn’t give any more infections. The safety problem for melflufen is in patients who are transplanted, who seem to have prolonged cytopenia after the treatment [with] melflufen, which probably makes them less tolerant of further treatment. That’s what's adding onto the survival detriment in the patients who are transplanted from before, because it seems like it's the patients who are transplanted from before who do get this prolonged bone marrow suppression from melflufen and we don’t see that in non-transplanted patients. Safety wise, as long as the treatment was ongoing, there were no big signals. The problem is after the treatment is over, [and patients] move on to the next treatment [and] you see that transplant in patients. Plus melflufen gives a longer-term problem.

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