Tag Archive for: high-risk disease

What Patient Types Are Good Candidates for CAR T-Cell Therapy?

/in , , , , , , , /by

What Patient Types Are Good Candidates for CAR T-Cell Therapy? from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

For CAR T-cell therapy, what patient types are good candidates? Expert Dr. Krina Patel from The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center discusses patient situations that qualify them for CAR T-cell therapy and shares proactive patient advice.

[ACT]IVATION TIP

“I think a lot of people have this misunderstanding that CAR T isn’t for everybody, but I will say it’s actually more likely that you’re going to be eligible for CAR T over auto transplant. So I think it’s just bringing it up, talking to them, and seeing a specialist to discuss which ones are the right one for you and when to go.”

Download Guide | Descargar Guía

See More from [ACT]IVATED CAR T

Related Resources:

How Can Variable Patient Groups Be Addressed in CAR T?

How Can Variable Patient Groups Be Addressed in CAR T?

 Are CAR-T Clinical Trials Studying Use As a Frontline Therapy?

Are There Myeloma Trials Investigating CAR T for Frontline Therapy?

 A Look at Promising Strategies to Improve CAR T-Cell Therapy Access

A Look at Promising Strategies to Improve CAR T-Cell Therapy Access

Transcript:

Lisa Hatfield:

Dr. Patel, given that CAR T is approved for earlier lines of therapy, can you describe the type of disease characteristics of patients that are likely to be considered first for CAR T?

Dr. Krina Patel:

Yeah, I think it’s a really exciting time, we got approval for two different CAR Ts that were approved in fifth line. So patients had to relapse four times before they could get to CAR T therapy. And now one of them, cilta-cel ciltacabtagene autoleucel [Carvykti], is approved in second line, so people have to relapse once before they can get it.

And the other CAR T, ide-cel (idecabtagene vicleucel) [Abecma], is approved in third line, so you have to relapse twice. There are reasons why that is the way it is, but both of these CAR Ts are pretty fantastic, and we’re really excited that more patients will now have access. As you can imagine, relapsing once, it’s already hard enough to then say, okay, I need a different therapy, but to go through four times before you can do something like CAR T is really, really important.

So I think the biggest characteristic, and I would say for my patients, it’s really their ability to keep their myeloma controlled for at least six to eight weeks, potentially, right? Because this is a personalized therapy, unlike most other myeloma therapies where we have to take the T cells out, we have to then send them to a lab to make the CARs, then it takes about four to six weeks to get them back. During that time, I just have to know that your myeloma can stay controlled or even improve with whatever bridging therapy we decide to do during that time.

And we know that when patients have myeloma that is on its way down, that it’s actually improving, by the time they get to the CAR T therapy, the infusion part, they tend to do better in terms of efficacy, but also have less toxicity. So there’s a few different toxicities that we can talk about with CAR T that are very distinct compared to most other therapies, that again, if you have less disease burden, the rates of that toxicity and the high-grade toxicity goes away, right? It’s much, much lower than if you have a lot of myeloma coming in.

So, again, for my patients who have disease that I know I have other therapies to keep it knocked down or to knock it down during that bridging, that really is the main difference between, can I take this patient to CAR T or not? But I think there’s some nuances too, again, that idea that one CAR T is approved in second line, another one is approved in third line, I do think they’ve never been tested head to head, so we don’t have data in a clinical trial, but in the real world, we’ve used both of these products, a lot of us have, and I think most of us will say that one of the products is probably stronger, it probably works better cilta-cel, and that is the one that’s approved in second line, which is great.

So for my fit patients who don’t have a lot of comorbidities, who do really have high-risk disease that I need to be as aggressive as possible and do something very different, hands down, it makes sense that cilta-cel is the right thing to do right at second line, but the toxicity is also a little bit higher with that, meaning that patients are more likely to potentially get some of these strange neurotoxicities that we see, that we didn’t really see before with other therapies, some of our myeloma patients get neuropathy and we think about that as neurotoxicity, but this is different.

This is more patients after 30 days of having had their T cells can all of a sudden get a facial palsy where they’re having drooping of their face and it can affect their eating and their speaking. Now those things are not fatal, we can treat it with steroids, things like that, but they can affect your quality of life. And if it doesn’t resolve, that can affect down the road, all the other therapies we want to give you, right? But the more dangerous one is something called delayed Parkinsonianism or delayed motor neurotoxicities.

And again, we know the best prevention of that is decreasing the myeloma burden before going to CAR T, but if we can’t do that or some patients can still potentially get this Parkinsonianism, we really want to make sure there’s a risk-benefit discussion, right? That we say, okay, this is why we should go in second line.

Again, the risk is less than 1 percent now based on how we’ve done things for prevention. But on the other hand, with ide-cel, most of our patients, even on dialysis, our patients that are getting CAR T and doing well, patients with heart failure, I’ve had a 90-year-old go through ide-cel without any issues and have great responses. So I think both of these offer, one of the first times they offer time without any therapy for myeloma. And so I would say this is something most of my patients should ask their physicians about, but really then it’s nuanced in terms of when we should do it and which product.

Lisa Hatfield:

Okay, thank you. And do you have an activation tip for that question, Dr. Patel?

Dr. Krina Patel:  

Yeah, so I think the activation tip here is bring it up, bring up CAR T to your doctors, right? I think a lot of people have this misunderstanding that CAR T isn’t for everybody, but I will say it’s actually more likely that you’re going to be eligible for CAR T over auto transplant. So I think it’s just bringing it up, talking to them, and seeing a specialist to discuss which ones are the right one for you and when to go.

Share Your Feedback

Create your own user feedback survey

Accessing Quality Myeloma Care | Advice for Overcoming Obstacles

/in , , , , , , , /by

Accessing Quality Myeloma Care | Advice for Overcoming Obstacles from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

How can you access the myeloma care that is best for YOU? Myeloma specialist Dr. Krina Patel shares advice for patients, including the importance of a second opinion and key questions to ask your doctor regarding your disease and treatment plan. 

Dr. Krina Patel is an Associate Professor in the Department of Lymphoma/Myeloma at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas. Dr. Patel is involved in research and cares for patients with multiple myeloma. Learn more about Dr. Krina Patel.

Related Resources:

What Is the Role of Bispecific Antibody Therapies in Future Myeloma Care?

What Is the Role of Bispecific Antibody Therapies in Future Myeloma Care?

Key Advice for Myeloma Patients | Questions to Ask About a Care Plan

 Elevate | What Role Can YOU Play in Your Myeloma Treatment and Care?

Elevate | What Role Can YOU Play in Your Myeloma Treatment and Care? 

Transcript:

Katherine:

What hurdles to patients face when accessing quality overall myeloma care and what can be done to get over these obstacles?  

Dr. Krina Patel:

I talk about this a lot. 

So, again I think the biggest problem for me is that because myeloma care changes so fast, which is a good thing that we have all these options and we have so many new therapies, it’s really hard for people who don’t do just myeloma to keep up. I don’t think I would be able to. I don’t do breast cancer. I don’t do other cancers, so when I take my boards every 10 years, I have to learn a lot to take those.

So, it’s just a part of the system that this the problem. So, I think if you’re seeing a local oncologist that sees five myeloma patients a year, they’re gonna be stuck on what was the treatment when they did it last time for that last patient, which again might be very different now because things change so fast. 

And so, again, you want to get to a doctor quickly, and I understand that. When people hear “cancer,” they’re like “I gotta get treatment. I gotta go fast.” But part of it is, if you need treatment quickly to get to your doctor. But then, try to make a second-opinion appointment done, even virtually because we can do that now after COVID; we have so many more options for that.  

And get that second opinion just to say “Is this the right therapy for me? Going forward, what should I do?” So, patients, “Should I get a stem cell transplant?” if you’re newly diagnosed or not. “What kinda maintenance should I be doing? Do I have high-risk disease or not? What are the nuances of my myeloma versus everybody else that we need to be careful about? Should we dose reduce?” There’s a lot of those types of hurdles. Patients, if they have kidney failure form their myeloma, we should be decreasing the dose of some of the medications; those types of things that really we can help with to make sure those outcomes are in the best. 

And that first treatment really does matter so that we can reverse as much as possible, for patients who have kidney involvement versus bone involvement, to decrease the pain really quickly. Do we need to get our radiation doctors involved to get radiation to help make sure you don’t get a fracture from a potential bone lesion. So, I think, again, I understand the urgency of seeing somebody, of getting diagnosed, and starting therapy.   

But quickly get to a second opinion so that they can help. And then, again, some of these patient advocacy groups are amazing for myeloma. And I think there’s just so much information there that you don’t want to get overwhelmed, but at the same time you want to start going a little bit at a time at those things so that you can learn more about what you need to be asking and doing.  

How Are MPN Treatments Changing for Low-Risk vs High-Risk Patients?

/in , , , , , , , /by

How Are MPN Treatments Changing for Low-Risk vs High-Risk Patients? from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

How do MPN treatments vary for low-risk and high-risk patients? MPN expert Dr. Claire Harrison from Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Hospital in London explains how treatment differs for these patients and changes that she would like to see for care of some patients. 

See More from Best MPN Care No Matter Where You Live

Related Resources:

How Can MPN Patients Stay Up to Date With New Treatments?

 How Can MPN Patients Become More Proactive in Their Care?

 Advice for Hesitant MPN Clinical Trial Participants

Transcript:

Dr. Nicole Rochester: 

How are treatment strategies changing for low-risk and high-risk patients with MPN?

Dr. Claire Harrison: 

It’s complicated because we need to think across the entities, and we don’t have an answer to that for patients with MPN unclassified. And we don’t actually have a good answer to that for this entity called pre-fibrotic myelofibrosis, which does appear and is strongly recognized in the new diagnostic criteria. But for ET, for example, low-risk patients I mentioned triple-negative, calreticulin, M-positive, young patients, platelets less than 1500, not too much changing their queries about aspirin or not, and then for PV patients, we haven’t really changed all kind of high-risk criteria and for both ET and PV, the questionnaire is, should we use the treatment above aspirin or above aspirin and venesection. 

And for the most part, that would be hydroxycarbamide, hydroxyurea (Hydrea), which is the commonest treatment used worldwide or interferon, and these are the right treatment for some patients and not the right treatment for other patients, so some patients can be very fixated on interferon is the absolute best, but there is no clear evidence of that, and there are some patients who interferon is not the right treatment, but low versus high risk becomes even more important for myelofibrosis patients.

And here, we’re thinking about using a risky strategy like transplantation for those patients who have higher risk disease, and we’re using, as I mentioned to you, these molecular markers and newer prognostic tools to stratify patients. And it is important to remember as a patient if someone puts your data into a prognostic tool and that comes up with five years, but it doesn’t mean to say five years on the dot your time’s up, that’s an average. And if we put your data into a slightly different tool, we might get something else. So for the most part, we make decisions like transplants, we are learning more about transplantation and outcomes from that, and then in some countries, some treatments are used for patients who fall into intermediate or high-risk categories, and some clinical trials are based on that as well. I would want to say about myelofibrosis, and something I think I would really like to see changed, not changing yet, but changed, is that we should be able to intervene for patients with a low-risk disease. If my myelofibrosis patients have breast cancer, we would not be going there, then you’ve got low-risk disease, we’ll put you on watch and wait, watch and wait is really hard for our patients, we know that I can see you nodding.

You know that too, right? So if these were patients with breast cancer we would not say, we’ll just watch and wait. So I would really like to see in the next five to 10 years a treatment that we could use earlier in the disease course, but there is nothing at the moment, but we’re looking at that. The other thing we’re looking at, if we’ve got a minute or so is the different endpoint, so we’re trying to understand what does it mean if your allele burden, so the amount of abnormal genes you’ve got goes down, the amount of bone marrow fibrosis you’ve got goes down. And again, this is something we’ll collect in a clinical trial, but also from real-world data. 

Which Gene Mutations Impact Myelofibrosis Treatment Options?

/in , , , , , , , /by

Which Gene Mutations Impact Myelofibrosis Treatment Options? from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

Are there specific mutations that may affect myelofibrosis treatment choices? Dr. Joseph Scandura explains the factors that are considered when deciding a myelofibrosis therapy, including a discussion of high-risk and low-risk disease.

Dr. Joseph Scandura is Associate Professor of Medicine and Scientific Director of the Silver MPN Center at Weill Cornell Medicine. Learn more about Dr. Scandura, here.

Related Programs

Have You Had These Essential Myelofibrosis Tests?

What Are the Considerations When Choosing Myelofibrosis Therapy?

Expert Perspective: Promising Myelofibrosis Treatment Research

Transcript

Katherine Banwell:

Are there gene mutations that affect myelofibrosis treatment choices? 

Dr. Scandura:

Yeah. So, you know, the primary mutations in JAK2 or CALR or MPL in myelofibrosis aren’t that helpful in guiding therapy.  

And we look at the other genes for co-ocurrent mutations and those, as I was mentioning before, can come into one of two categories. So, there are a number of genes that we know tend to confer a higher risk, and so we call those high molecular risk mutations. And people who have higher molecular risk tend to have a more aggressive disease. 

Now, I want to add a word of caution because when we talk about patients and risk, we’re talking about groups of patients. For any individual, everything kind of boils down to it happens, or it doesn’t happen. And so, there’s nobody is 50 percent dead in five years, right. You either are or you’re not. And so, when we talk about risk, then we’re talking about risk of bad things happening like death or other complications of the disease, we’re trying to guide treatment decision-making and guided discussion based on a chance.  

But all of those things, for any individual, there are people who have high risk who do quite well for a long period of time, and people who don’t have high risk who don’t do as well as you think they should. And so, it’s a part of a conversation, it helps guide discussion, but it is not something carved into stone, and nobody has a perfect ability to predict anybody’s future. 

And all of these things are our best tools to estimate, but they are not a future; they are a possibility. And so, people who have higher molecular risk, we might think about more aggressive treatments than people who have lower molecular risk.