Ide-Cel versus Cilta-Cel for Refractory MM: What Is the Bottom Line for Patients?

Blood Cancers Today caught up with Krina Patel, MD, MSc, co-editor-in-chief for the BCT Editorial Board, about her recent clinical research work in multiple myeloma. Dr. Patel is based at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, where she is the section chief and research lead for multiple myeloma, as well as an associate professor in the Department of Lymphoma and Myeloma.

Dr. Patel was a member of a study team that compared standard-of-care idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) and ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Doris Hansen, MD, of the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute in Tampa, Florida, led the study, and its findings were published in Journal of Clinical Oncology.¹

In this interview segment, Dr. Patel explained that this study addressed a lack of prospective studies that directly compare these two interventions for multiple myeloma. She highlighted that the execution of the study stressed minimization of bias in handling retrospective data. Dr. Patel also gave a practical takeaway for clinicians’ decision-making from this comparison of ide-cel and cilta-cel that the latter features greater efficacy but increased toxicity.