Belantamab mafodotin (belamaf), an antibody-drug conjugate approved for the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), is an anti B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) agent. DREAMM-1, a first in-human trial of belamaf, reported several ocular toxicities requiring dose adjustments, dose delays and treatment discontinuations. In DREAMM-1, 53% of patients in part-1 and 63% of patients in part-2 had ocular toxicity. Similarly, 73% of patients in DREAMM-2 had keratopathy (71% in 2.5 mg/kg versus 75% in 3.4 mg/kg) with the most common symptoms being blurred vision and dry eyes. Ocular toxicity of belamaf is attributed to microtubule-disrupting monomethylauristatin-F (MMAF), a cytotoxic payload of the drug that causes an off-target damage to the corneal epithelial cells. Ocular adverse events (AEs) of belamaf are more frequent at higher doses compared with lower doses. Higher belamaf dose, history of dry eyes and soluble BCMA are associated with increased risk of corneal toxicity. Absence of ocular symptoms does not exclude the possibility of belamaf-induced ocular toxicity, so patients need slit lamp and Snellen visual acuity testing to detect microcytic-like epithelial changes and visual decline. Corticosteroid eyes drops for 4-7 days prior to belamaf dose do not prevent ocular AEs and may cause steroid-related AEs instead. Keratopathy and Visual Acuity scale (KVA) is recommended to document the severity of belamaf-induced ocular toxicity and make treatment adjustments. Management of toxicity includes dosage modifications, treatment interruption or discontinuations and preservative-free artificial tears along with close ophthalmology and hematology-oncology follow-ups.
e20503 Background: Multiple Myeloma (MM) is treatable but an incurable hematological malignancy, requiring additional approaches such as maintenance therapy (MT) after autologous-stem cell transplantation. MT aids to achieve deepened response, sustained response and prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) but has a controversy over its overall survival (OS) benefit. Within the last decade, there have been innovative efforts tested for MT. We designed a systematic review to evaluate the current evidence on this topic. Methods: PubMed and Embase were searched for articles published on MT between 01/2010 and 12/2018 and PRISMA guidelines were used to evaluate 76,588 articles on PubMed and 1516 articles on Embase. Thirty-three articles were included in systematic review. Results: Thirteen articles were available on lenalidomide-MT whereas six articles each on thalidomide and proteasome inhibitors, five articles on combination therapy, two articles on miscellaneous and one article on elotuzumab were available, including trials and observational studies. MT (thalidomide 50 mg, lenalidomide 10 mg) was given for a variable period, commonly used till relapse, progression or unacceptable toxicity. Thalidomide showed consistent PFS-benefit but no OS benefit and had significant neurotoxicity, responsible for discontinuations or dose reductions. Lenalidomide had evidence for both, improved PFS and some evidence for better OS and had hematotoxicity, mainly neutropenia which required dose reductions. Secondary primary malignancies were more frequent with lenalidomide. Longer maintenance of lenalidomide was associated with more toxicity. Thalidomide-bortezomib combination had better PFS than thalidomide alone but no OS benefit. Bortezomib-MT improved OS in high-risk patients and renal failure and had dose-dependent toxicity. Bortezomib-MT after bortezomib-based induction was better than thalidomide-based-MT after cytotoxic induction. MT was associated with the achievement of negative MRD-status. Ixazomib was effective and feasible with improved PFS. Combination of bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone MT was beneficial in high-risk patients. Conclusions: MT improves PFS with limited evidence toward improved OS. For better outcomes, lenalidomide-based-MT should be given routinely; adjustment of dose might be required due to neutropenia. High-risk patients can get benefit from combination therapy. Role of combination MT needs to be further explored in large prospective studies.
e18527 Background: Ethnic minorities in US have poorer outcomes due to poor socioeconomic determinants. We evaluated association between ethnicity and insurance status among US adults with cancer who participated in National Health and Nutrition Examination survey for 2013-18. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study involving participants with history of cancer; participants with missing insurance/ethnicity information were excluded. Outcome of interest was insurance coverage in minorities vs Whites. The comparison of baseline characteristics (Table) stratified by insurance (Yes vs No) was made using Chi-square and t-tests incorporating survey procedures in SAS v. 9.4. Logistic regression was used for adjusted and unadjusted odds ratio (OR). Results: Among 29,400 participants, 1,684 had cancer. After excluding 81 participants with missing data, 1,603 were included; 5.2% were uninsured. Table summarizes characteristics of participants stratified by insurance. The uninsured individuals were 14 years younger, predominantly females, Hispanics and non-US born, and were less educated compared to the insured. Unadjusted OR of no insurance vs insurance was 4.23 (95%CI: 2.40-7.47) for Hispanics, 1.23 (95%CI: 0.64- 2.38) for Blacks and 1.50 for others (95%CI: 0.48-4.74) when compared to Whites. After adjusting for age, sex, education, US born status and routine place for medical care, OR for Hispanics, Blacks and others were 1.31 (95%CI: 0.73-2.36), 1.00 (95%CI: 0.46-2.18) and 0.86 (95%CI: 0.26-2.78), respectively. Conclusions: Poor socioeconomic indicators among US cancer population may leave them being uninsured; thereby making them vulnerable to poor outcomes in particular in the ethnic minorities including Hispanics. [Table: see text]
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.