Despite the individual high efficacy of both BCMA-directed therapies and anti-CD38 antibodies, there is significant clinical concern about combining them. The potential for compounded immunosuppression and severe infection risk is a major barrier shaping clinical trial design and favoring sequential use over concurrent combination.
Related Insights
The NCI 9673 trial demonstrated that adding the CTLA-4 inhibitor ipilimumab to the PD-1 inhibitor nivolumab did not improve response rate, PFS, or overall survival in patients with previously treated anal cancer. This finding discourages this combination approach, avoiding unnecessary toxicity.
Clinicians must weigh the immediate benefit of using community-accessible belantumab against the risk of reducing the efficacy of future BCMA-targeted therapies like CAR-T or bispecifics. This decision hinges on a patient's ability to travel and access advanced care, creating a complex treatment sequencing challenge.
Not all CD20-targeting bispecifics can be combined with rituximab. Mosunetuzumab binds the same epitope, causing competition. However, glofitamab and epcoritamab bind different epitopes, allowing for logical and potentially synergistic combinations with rituximab-based regimens.
While the feared side effect of severe lung inflammation (pneumonitis) did not increase, other immune-mediated adverse events did. This led to higher rates of treatment discontinuation in the experimental arm, potentially negating any benefits of the concurrent approach and contributing to the trial's failure.
Initial studies combining menin inhibitors with venetoclax/azacitidine showed high remission rates but also high mortality. Using each agent at its full, 28-day dose caused severe, fatal myelosuppression, forcing protocol amendments to shorten drug exposure to manage toxicity.
The next frontier in CSCC isn't just about new drugs, but about optimizing existing ones. A key research area is determining the minimum number of immunotherapy doses required for an optimal response—potentially just one or two—to limit toxicity, reduce treatment burden, and personalize care for high-risk patients.
Using a BCMA bispecific antibody first can exhaust a patient's T-cells or cause tumors to lose the BCMA target, rendering a subsequent BCMA-targeted CAR-T therapy ineffective. The optimal sequence is CAR-T first, which preserves T-cell function and BCMA expression, leaving bispecifics as a viable later-line option.
The primary hurdle for the entire biologics field is enhancing the therapeutic index (efficacy vs. toxicity). Because most conditions like cancer and autoimmune disorders are 'diseases of self,' therapeutics often have on-target, off-tumor effects. This fundamental problem drives the need for innovations like masking and conditional activation.
In high-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), trials like CREST and POTOMAC show adding a systemic immune checkpoint inhibitor to BCG therapy introduces significant toxicity. The benefit is primarily in local control, which may not justify the risk, especially with other effective intravesical options available.
Bi-specific T-cell engagers (BiTEs) are highly immunogenic because the mechanism activating T-cells to kill cancer also primes them to mount an immune response against the drug itself. This 'collateral effect' is an inherent design challenge for this drug class.
