Evolve | What You Should Know About Advances in CAR T-Cell Therapy for Myeloma

See More from Evolve CAR T-Cell Therapy

Related Resources:

How Can Myeloma Patients Access CAR T-Cell Therapy Clinical Trials?

Will CAR T-Cell Therapy Be Approved for Earlier Lines of Myeloma Treatment?

How Is CAR T-Cell Therapy Research Advancing Myeloma Care?

Transcript:

Katherine Banwell:

Hello and welcome. I’m your host, Katherine Banwell. Today’s program is part of the Patient Empowerment Network’s Evolve series, which was developed to provide you with the latest treatment information and research, helping you to feel empowered and confident during conversations about your care. In today’s program, we’re going to hear from an expert in the field discussing CAR T-cell therapy and the evolving treatment landscape. 

Before before we get into the discussion, please remember that this program is not a substitute for medical advice. Please refer to your healthcare team about what might be best for you. Joining us today is Dr. Rahul Banerjee. Dr. Banerjee, it’s so good to see you. Welcome. Would you please introduce yourself? 

Dr. Rahul Banerjee:

Of course. Thank you, Katherine, for taking the time to interview me. Thank you to everyone who’s listening. My name is Dr. Rahul Banerjee. I’m an Assistant Professor of Medicine at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, Washington.  

I specialize in multiple myeloma, which is a form of blood cancer that we’ll talk about, and other precursor conditions, for example, smoldering myeloma and AL amyloidosis. I have a heavy interest in CAR T therapy and bispecific antibodies and other types of immunotherapy for blood cancers, and I’m sure we’ll be speaking about that as well. It’s great to be here. 

Katherine Banwell:

And thank you so much for taking time out of your busy day. I’d like to start by talking about your role as a researcher. You’re on the front lines for advancements in the myeloma field. What led you here, and why is it important to you? 

Dr. Rahul Banerjee:

Absolutely. So, the short answer is that I love the art and the science of oncology, of cancer care. I feel like it really gives us a great chance to work with patients and really help them through the difficult chapter of their life. And the science, particularly in malignant hematology, is a word we use for blood cancers like myeloma, lymphoma, et cetera. There’s a lot of fascinating science about how do we train the immune system to overcome cancers of immune cells? 

In terms of why myeloma, you’ll probably hear this from many physicians who speak on this program. Part of it is the patients, and I love treating my patients with myeloma. They have the most interesting stories for me. Many of them are older and have been through a lot, and I worked with them for years for diagnosing myeloma, treating them through myeloma, monitoring for relapses, and so forth. 

And also the mentors whom I had. So, when I was a trainee in fellowship, I was not sure where I would go. I knew it was somewhere within blood cancers, but I had a mentor, Dr. Nina Shah, who is phenomenal, and she did a lot of work in multiple myeloma in particular, including around CAR T therapy, and I kind of molded myself, imprinted myself on her. And now several years later, here I am kind of working in this similar space, focusing again at the intersection of multiple myeloma and these immunotherapies, like CAR T therapy. 

Katherine Banwell:

We’ve been talking about CAR T-cell therapy for a number of years now. How has this treatment revolutionized care for patients? 

Dr. Rahul Banerjee:

Absolutely. So, the biggest benefit of CAR T therapy, I think, is how well it works. So, I’ll predominantly focus on multiple myeloma, but of course there are CAR T therapies that are approved for different kinds of lymphoma, and B-cell leukemia as well. But in brief, CAR T therapy, we train the immune system to fight back against the myeloma, against the cancer that’s there. And it’s phenomenal, because it’s the only living drug we have, really, in our toolbox. Everything else is dependent on the dose, right? As soon as the drug is out of your system, it stops working. CAR T-cells don’t work that way. They can live and expand and proliferate to get rid of the threat within. 

And at least in myeloma, for example, CAR T therapies regularly have response rates, meaning complete response rates, how quickly they knock all the myeloma parameters down to zero basically in the 70, 80, 90 percent range. Many patients achieve measurable residual disease, or MRD negativity, meaning by all the best tools available in 2024, no sign of the myeloma anywhere.  

That doesn’t mean cure, to be fair, but that’s wonderful. With other conventional therapies, to have one drug with one infusion have that big of an impact on the myeloma is phenomenal.  

The other benefit of CAR T therapy is that it is a one-time infusion. It doesn’t mean that patients can get one-time CAR T and never have to see a cancer doctor again because again, at least in myeloma, I don’t consider CAR T to be uniformly curative for patients. However, if you look at the studies, and there’ve been two randomized studies in myeloma of CAR T therapy versus standard therapies. One was a KarMMa-3 trial with a drug called ide-cel, a CAR T drug also known as Abecma. And the other one was CARTITUDE-4, which was a study of cilta-cel versus standard treatment. And cilta-cel is a kind of CAR T also known as Carvykti.  

Both studies saw improvements, dramatic improvements in the response rate, how many patients had the myeloma numbers come down, but also durations of response and progression-free survival. How long patients were alive and disease-free for.  

Literally just a month ago, we found out officially that the cilta-cel trial and the CARTITUDE-4 study, CAR T actually prolonged overall survival compared to standard therapies, which is what patients are looking for.  

But for me, what I love about CAR T the most is not just that you’re in remission for longer, or with cilta-cel you live longer, but that you live better. Both studies, and I’m very happy to see this incorporated, what we call patient-reported outcomes, which is an area of research of mine. Patient-reported outcomes are, as you can imagine, outcomes that are reported by the patient. Not the blood test for the myeloma, but how are patients feeling in terms of their quality of life, in terms of their fatigue, in terms of their pain.  

And in both studies, off the charts. CAR T does way better and way faster in terms of improving quality of life than standard treatments, to the point where the studies, for example, often for both of them, if I recall correctly, the first time point where they looked and compared the two arms was three months after CAR T. And already by then, night and day difference.  

The patients who got CAR T, the first month a little bit rocky, but after the first month or two, they’re doing better, because they’re not on myeloma treatments continuously. They’re still getting blood work checked and so forth, but they’re not on treatment. It’s a one-time infusion and monitoring thereafter. 

And I love that about it, and I think that explains a lot of the quality of life benefits that we see.  

For my other patients with myeloma, outside of CAR T, there is never a scenario where they’re observed. The vast majority of patients because myeloma is considered incurable, we keep them on some form of maintenance treatment, and those come with side effects. Those come with financial toxicity. That’s the word we use for high out-of-pocket costs. They come with what I would call time toxicity. That’s time spent on the phone coordinating shipments or coming in for this infusion or that infusion. 

CAR T has much less of that, and I think that’s phenomenal. So, I would say that it’s revolutionized the field, not just scientifically from the things that you’d expect a researcher to care the most about – for how long, you know, how deep are their remissions and how durable are their remissions, but also for the things that I care about. The art of oncology is how our patients are living, and that’s why I think CAR T is revolutionary. 

Katherine Banwell:

Dr. Banerjee, would you walk us through the currently approved CAR T-cell therapies for myeloma and share how these treatments work to combat myeloma? 

Dr. Rahul Banerjee:

Absolutely so. So, there’s two FDA-approved CAR T therapies right now for multiple myeloma. One is ide-cel, also known as Abecma. One is cilta-cel, also known as Carvykti. The mechanics of them are pretty similar. Both involve T-cells being collected from the patient and then turned into CAR T-cells, cancer fighting cells in a lab, then put back into the patient after a small dose, what we call lympho-depleting chemotherapy, that creates a void and makes room for the T cells. 

And then the T cells come in and are able to activate and proliferate and respond and kill off the myeloma. In terms of the two drugs, the differences between them, we might come back to that a bit in terms of just how they’re approved. Cilta-cel is currently approved as early as first relapse. So, second line treatment onwards in myeloma for patients who have disease that is refractory to lenalidomide (Revlimid) or a similar class of drugs.  

So, lenalidomide is Revlimid. So, if someone’s been on Revlimid and it stopped working, they could technically go to cilta-cel, which is Carvykti, as soon as second line. 

Ide-cel or Abecma is approved for third line treatment, meaning at least two prior relapses or two types of therapy that were stopped unexpectedly because of not working or toxicities or so forth. And those patients would have had to have received both an iMiD, like Revlimid, which is lenalidomide, a proteasome inhibitor, which is like Velcade or bortezomib, and a CD38 directed monoclonal antibody like daratumumab, which is also called Darzalex or Darzalex Faspro.   

Katherine Banwell:

CAR T therapies have been in use for several years now. As a clinician, what challenges are you facing with this treatment option? 

Dr. Rahul Banerjee:

Absolutely. So, I would say threefold, is the best way to describe it. So, I think the first and most practical, like the most important one is obviously access. It’s very easy for me to talk about CAR T therapy. I had the privilege of working at a big center, where I was just last week attending on our CAR T service. We’re big enough to have a CAR T service. 

Most patients are treated in the community, and they don’t have access to a doctor who’s personally familiar with CAR T. And so for them to get to CAR T requires a move to a big academic center, a big tertiary care center. Obviously, I think this talk is geared more towards the U.S. audience, but most of the world has no access to CAR T, period, except for research protocols, and that makes things really tough. So, I think that’s one unmet need in general, where those patients who cannot get to CAR T never see me, and that’s a big disparity in the field.  

Two, I would say that the autologous CAR T products we have, autologous is the word that we use for the T cells that are coming from the patient themselves. Both Abecma and Carvykti, again, it’s the patient’s own cells that are being taken out, turned into CAR  
T cells, and put back. That manufacturing process takes time. Typically, I tell patients to expect about one to two months, closer to two months often, between the day that the T cells are taken out and the day they’re put back in again, what we often call the quote unquote “vein-to-vein interval.” And that’s hard because for some patients that’s not practical. 

The myeloma is, you know, so aggressive, behaving aggressively, that they cannot wait. There’s no drug I can give them where I can wait two months for the T cells to be manufactured. We’re getting better at it. The drug company is working better at it. There are a lot of investigational products that are not FDA approved yet that are looking at rapid manufacturing, where can you grow these  
T cells and the CAR T cells in two days or one day, instead of several weeks? I think that’s really interesting. 

There are studies of allogeneic CAR T cells, where the T cells are pre-manufactured from a healthy donor and manipulated so they won’t cause any other problems, but will attack the myeloma. So, a lot of research happening there, but that’s the problem for patients where they cannot get to CAR T therapy.  

And then the third unmet need would be – I’m seeing more of this, unfortunately, right? CAR T therapy is not considered curative for myeloma. Have I met people who are doing great years out from myeloma? Yes, from CAR T therapy, and I love that. In the original LEGEND-2 study, the study that led to the CARTITUDE-1 study that led to the approval of cilta-cel, which is Carvykti. 

If I recall correctly, about 20 percent of patients on that first Chinese study years ago are alive and disease-free five years later. That’s not enough, right? I don’t want it to be 20 percent, I want it to be 100 percent. And so we have work to be done there in terms of what do we do when the myeloma, the CAR T cells stop working, or they’re out of the system and are no longer there to fight back. What do we do next? And I think that’s another unmet need still. Despite all the advances, what to do after CAR T, no one really knows. 

Katherine Banwell:

Yes. Well, how is success measured for CAR T-cell therapy? 

Dr. Rahul Banerjee:

It’s a great question. So, traditionally, the metric in multiple myeloma has been achieving a complete response. So, having the M-spike, the antibodies that are produced by the myeloma cells, come down to zero.  

So, either the M-spike, or for some patients, that may be the kappa or the lambda, which are fragments called light chains of antibodies, coming down to the normal range. The hard thing about those is that they take time. I’ve had patients who get CAR T therapy, and their bone marrow is completely clear, including MRD, measurable residual disease, as I’ll talk about in a second, but the M-spike takes months. 

I had one patient where it took a year and a half for the M-spike to finally come down to zero. And it’s frustrating because I would say that, look, in my heart, you’re in remission, but if I were a lawyer, I wouldn’t be able to say that, because technically the M-spike is not quite zero yet. Your body’s just recycling that antibody. It’s not all the way down to zero, and that makes things tough. So, I don’t think that’s a great barometer to use.  

I think MRD, which is again, a bone marrow test that we can spend more time talking about another day, is helpful. And at the one-month mark, achieving MRD negativity.  

So, if you look in the bone marrow, by all the best tests available in the United States in the year 2024, and you can’t even find one out of a million cells that are myeloma, that’s obviously great to see.  

That doesn’t mean that if it doesn’t happen, the patients are going to do poorly. There’s a lot more to CAR T than that. So, I think MRD negativity is probably the best short-term barometer. I think the best long-term barometer would be progression-free survival, which is, again, the medical word of saying how long is someone alive and in remission for. 

With cilta-cel, which is Carvykti, again, in the CARTITUDE-1 study, which led to its approval, its first approval for four prior lines of therapy. There, most patients, the median progression-free survival was 35 months. So, almost three years. That’s amazing, right? Three years of mileage of coming in for blood work, some supportive care, IVIG, which is a type of antibody transfusion, but not needing myeloma treatment. That’s great. That’s the bar that we’d be looking for from an efficacy perspective. I think the other thing, just to talk about it, I’m sure we’ll come back to it, would be safety, right? Because these cells, these therapies do come with side effects.  

And so I think the other bar by which, in the future, I may compare CAR T therapies as more come to market, would not just be this progression-free survival, which is how long are patients in remission for and disease-free and alive. Not just MRD negativity, which is how the bone marrow biopsy looks at day 28, one month after CAR T. But also the safety profile. Are we seeing any scary, concerning, delayed toxicities? And if we don’t, that would be another bar for success in my mind, especially as we move CAR T to earlier lines, where other treatments are available. 

We have to make sure that the benefit-risk ratio for CAR T remains favorable. 

Katherine Banwell:

Yes. Well, let’s talk about side effects of CAR T-cell therapy. What advances are being made in managing them? 

Dr. Rahul Banerjee:

Excellent question. So, I break the toxicities into short-term and long-term toxicity of CAR T therapy. And this is actually fairly similar for both, regardless of the underlying disease, whereas lymphoma, leukemia, or myeloma, very similar. Just so everyone, just to reorient the audience, short-term toxicities, people often talk about the big two. I’m going to say the big three, actually. The first one is cytokine release syndrome, or CRS, which is inflammation, typically causing fever, sometimes low blood pressure. 

The second is neurotoxicity, or ICANS. For reasons that aren’t entirely understood, sometimes all those chemicals from inflammation can cause people to feel a bit off mentally or cognitively. Sometimes people might not be able to talk, or might not talk correctly, or sometimes have issues along those lines.