Nursing Care Throughout the Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cell Therapy Process for Multiple Myeloma.

OBJECTIVES: Approvals of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) represent advancements in treatment options for a hard-to-treat population. Nursing care during CAR-T therapy is crucial for patients, their caregivers, and the broader CAR-T therapy care team. This manuscript provides an overview of the CAR-T therapy administration process and describes practical considerations for nursing professionals working with patients who receive CAR-T therapy. DATA SOURCES: Current literature describing CAR-T therapies for RRMM and published guidelines on nursing care during CAR-T therapy administration were identified from a PubMed database search. Literature was synthesized with practical considerations from nurses and nurse practitioners with expertise in the administration of CAR-T therapy for MM. A practical overview of the role of nursing professionals throughout all stages of CAR-T therapy administration for RRMM is provided. CONCLUSION: Planning, administration, and posttreatment monitoring for CAR-T therapy requires collaboration between nursing professionals and other healthcare providers as patients migrate between community oncology providers and specialized treatment centers. Nurses help with assessment of patient eligibility and patient and caregiver education before CAR-T therapy. They act in diverse roles across various settings involved in CAR-T therapy administration. Finally, nurses contribute to long-term identification and management of CAR-T-associated toxicities. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Nurses are crucial to the CAR-T therapy process and make significant contributions to optimizing patient care and subsequent outcomes.

Cilta-cel or Standard Care in Lenalidomide-Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel), a B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-directed CAR T-cell therapy, is effective in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. We investigated cilta-cel in earlier treatment lines in patients with lenalidomide-refractory disease. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomized, open-label trial, we assigned patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma to receive cilta-cel or the physician's choice of effective standard care. All the patients had received one to three previous lines of treatment. The primary outcome was progression-free survival. RESULTS: A total of 419 patients underwent randomization (208 to receive cilta-cel and 211 to receive standard care). At a median follow-up of 15.9 months (range, 0.1 to 27.3), the median progression-free survival was not reached in the cilta-cel group and was 11.8 months in the standard-care group (hazard ratio, 0.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18 to 0.38; P<0.001). Progression-free survival at 12 months was 75.9% (95% CI, 69.4 to 81.1) in the cilta-cel group and 48.6% (95% CI, 41.5 to 55.3) in the standard-care group. More patients in the cilta-cel group than in the standard-care group had an overall response (84.6% vs. 67.3%), a complete response or better (73.1% vs. 21.8%), and an absence of minimal residual disease (60.6% vs. 15.6%). Death from any cause was reported in 39 patients and 46 patients, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.5 to 1.2). Most patients reported grade 3 or 4 adverse events during treatment. Among the 176 patients who received cilta-cel in the as-treated population, 134 (76.1%) had cytokine release syndrome (grade 3 or 4, 1.1%; no grade 5), 8 (4.5%) had immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (all grade 1 or 2), 1 had movement and neurocognitive symptoms (grade 1), 16 (9.1%) had cranial nerve palsy (grade 2, 8.0%; grade 3, 1.1%), and 5 (2.8%) had CAR-T-related peripheral neuropathy (grade 1 or 2, 2.3%; grade 3, 0.6%). CONCLUSIONS: A single cilta-cel infusion resulted in a lower risk of disease progression or death than standard care in lenalidomide-refractory patients with multiple myeloma who had received one to three previous therapies. (Funded by Janssen and Legend Biotech; CARTITUDE-4 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04181827.).

Optimal Supportive Care With Selinexor Improves Outcomes in Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Supportive care improves outcomes in many cancers. In the pivotal STORM study selinexor, a first-in-class, oral, selective exportin 1 inhibitor, and low-dose dexamethasone proved to be an effective treatment for patients with triple-class refractory myeloma. We conducted a post-hoc analysis to test the hypothesis that increased utilization of supportive care measures in a sub-cohort of the STORM study prolonged treatment duration with- and improved efficacy of- selinexor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The STORM protocol included specific recommendations for dose modifications and supportive care to mitigate selinexor most common adverse events (AEs) including nausea, fatigue, and thrombocytopenia. The Tisch Cancer Center at Mount Sinai School of Medicine (MSSM) incorporated additional supportive care strategies within the framework of the STORM protocol. RESULTS: Of 123 patients enrolled in STORM, 28 were enrolled at MSSM. The overall response rate was 26.2% in the overall STORM population and 53.6% in the MSSM cohort. Moreover, duration of response, progression free survival, and overall survival were longer in the MSSM cohort. AEs and dose modification events were similar in the 2 groups. The MSSM cohort had more dose reductions (67.9% vs. 50.5%), and higher use of multiple antiemetic agents (71.4% vs. 50.1%) and romiplostim (32.1% vs. 6.3%), but less discontinuations due to treatment-related AEs (3.6% vs. 25.3%). CONCLUSION: These results suggests that in addition to more frequent dose reductions, prompter and more aggressive supportive care may have contributed to the low discontinuation rate, longer duration therapy, and greater efficacy rates observed in the MSSM cohort. (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02336815).

A phase II study of pomalidomide, daily oral cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients treated with pomalidomide and dexamethasone have an overall response rate (ORR) of ∼30% and median progression-free survival (PFS) of 4-5 months. Previous studies explored addition of weekly cyclophosphamide, but we hypothesized that daily dosing allows for better synergy. We report the open-label, single-center phase II study of pomalidomide, daily cyclophosphamide and weekly dexamethasone (PCD). Thirty-three patients were evaluable for efficacy and underwent 28-day cycles of pomalidomide (4 mg/day, D1-21), cyclophosphamide (50 mg b.i.d., D1-21) and weekly dexamethasone. All were lenalidomide-refractory and 55% were refractory to lenalidomide and proteasome inhibitor. ORR was 73%; median PFS and overall survival were 13.3 months and 57.2 months respectively. Grade 3/4 toxicities were primarily hematologic but manageable with dose reductions. Early disease progression correlated with MYC expression and flow cytometry demonstrates an activated microenvironment post-PCD. Addition of metronomic cyclophosphamide to pomalidomide and dexamethasone is a cost-effective, oral regimen with encouraging PFS.

A phase 2 study of panobinostat with lenalidomide and weekly dexamethasone in myeloma.

Phase 3 studies combining histone deacetylase inhibitors with bortezomib were hampered by gastrointestinal (GI) intolerance, which was not observed when combined with immunomodulatory drugs. This study is a single-center phase 2 study of panobinostat with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (FRD). Twenty-seven relapsed multiple myeloma patients were enrolled. Twenty-two patients (81%) were lenalidomide refractory and 9 (33%), 14 (52%), and 7 (26%) were refractory to pomalidomide, bortezomib, and carfilzomib, respectively. High-risk molecular findings were present in 17 (63%) patients. Responses included 2 complete responses (CRs), 4 very good partial responses (VGPRs), 5 partial responses (PRs), and 9 minimal responses (MRs) for an overall response rate of 41%, clinical benefit rate of 74%, and a disease control rate of 96%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7.1 months. In the 22 lenalidomide-refractory patients, there were 1 CR, 4 VGPRs, 3 PRs, and 7 MRs, with a median PFS of 6.5 months. Median overall survival was not reached. Grade 3/4 toxicities were primarily hematologic. Gene expression profiling of enrollment tumor samples revealed a set of 1989 genes associated with short (<90 days) PFS to therapy. MAGEA1 RNA and protein expression were correlated with short PFS, and laboratory studies demonstrated a role for MAGE-A in resistance to panobinostat-induced cell death. FRD demonstrates durable responses, even in high-risk, lenalidomide-refractory patients, indicating the essential role of panobinostat in attaining responses. MAGEA1 expression may represent a functional biomarker for resistance to panobinostat. In contrast to PANORAMA 1, there were no significant GI toxicities and primarily expected hematologic toxicities. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00742027.