Shaji Kumar, MD, Details Toxicities With Daratumumab Plus Lenalidomide/Dexamethasone in Frontline MM

Video

At EHA 2021, Shaji Kumar, MD, reviews the toxicity profile of daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone for patients with transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma in the first-line setting.

CancerNetwork® sat down with Shaji Kumar, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, at the 2021 European Hematology Association (EHA) Congress to talk about long-term toxicities associated with daratumumab (Darzalex) plus lenalidomide (Revlimid) and dexamethasone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, and how there were no new safety signals detected at the 5-year follow-up to the phase 3 MAIA trial (NCT02252172).

Transcript:

Given the fact that daratumumab is a new drug, [the toxicity profile] is an area that everyone [questioned.] Are their long-term toxicities associated with this? Patients have been on therapy for long periods of time now [and] there were no new safety signals. There were no cumulative toxicities that were observed with daratumumab plus lenalidomide, and dexamethasone compared with lenalidomide/dexamethasone. There are certainly hematological toxicities that we saw before. There’s certainly more neutropenia with the [daratumumab] combination, and that is to be expected based on what we have seen before. [There’s] more lymphopenia as well, but nothing that appears to be new with the longer duration of therapy.

Reference

Theirry F, Kumar S, Torben P, et al. Overall survival results with daratumumab, Lenalidomide, and dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: phase 3 MAIA study. Presented at: 2021 European Hematology Association Annual Meeting; June 9-17, 2021; Virtual; Abstract LB1901. Accessed June 29, 2021. https://bit.ly/3hmf7l9

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