Administering CAR T-Cell Therapy and Bispecific Agents in Nursing Practice

Commentary
Podcast

Registered nurses discuss research related to agents like ciltacabtagene autoleucel presented at the 2024 Oncology Nursing Society Congress.

During the 2024 Oncology Nursing Society Congress, CancerNetwork® spoke with multiple registered nurses about research they presented on safely administering treatment options such as CAR T-cell therapy and bispecific T-cell engager (BiTE) therapy in patients with multiple myeloma and other malignancies.

Ishmael Applewhite, BSN, RN-BC, OCN, a registered nurse at the University of Rochester Medical Center, highlighted the management of adverse effects including peripheral neuropathy in patients with multiple myeloma undergoing treatment with ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel; Carvykti). He discussed these treatment strategies in the context of a presentation he gave on findings from the phase 3 CARDITUDE-4 trial (NCT04181827), in which investigators assessed treatment with cilta-cel in those who were refractory to lenalidomide (Revlimid).1

According to Applewhite, cilta-cel may offer “another path” aside from standard treatment options such as chemotherapy and give “more time” to patients with multiple myeloma.

Additionally, Leslie Bennett, MSN, RN, a nurse coordinator at Stanford Healthcare, highlighted the importance of identifying and mitigating cranial nerve palsy (CNP) in patients with multiple myeloma who are treated with cilta-cel. At the conference, Bennett presented data on CNP outcomes across various studies, which included the phase 1/2 CARTITUDE-1 trial (NCT03548207), phase 2 CARTITUDE-2 trial (NCT04133636), and phase 3 CARTITUDE-4 trial (NCT04181827).2

According to findings from this presentation, patients had CNP onset at a median of approximately 3 weeks after beginning treatment with cilta-cel. Most cases of CNP tended to occur in male patients.

Kathy Mooney, MSN, RN, ACNS-BC, BMTCN®, OCN®,clinical program director at Johns Hopkins Hospital and Johns Hopkins Health System, spoke about a study designed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of using BiTE therapy to treat those with cancer in an outpatient setting.3 Mooney emphasized multidisciplinary collaboration among nurses, pharmacy providers, and social workers as part of monitoring patients for toxicity as they undergo treatment with BiTE agents.

References

  1. Applewhite I, Elfrink G, Esselmann J, Lonardi C, Florendo E, Sidiqi MH. Efficacy and adverse events after ciltacabtagene autoleucel treatment in the CARTITUDE-4 as-treated population consisting of patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma who received 1-3 prior lines of therapy. Presented at: 2024 Oncology Nursing Society Congress; April 24-28, 2024; Washington, DC.
  2. Bennett L, Kruyswijk S, Sidana S, et al. Incidence and management of cranial nerve impairments in patients with multiple myeloma treated with ciltacabtagene autoleucel in CARTITUDE studies. Presented at: 2024 Oncology Nursing Society Congress; April 24-28, 2024; Washington, DC.
  3. Mooney K, Allen N, Anderson K, Zukas A. Taking a BiTE out of hospital admission days using a team approach to managing patients at risk for treatment related toxicities. Presented at: 2024 Oncology Nursing Society Congress; April 24-28, 2024; Washington, DC.

Newsletter

Stay up to date on recent advances in the multidisciplinary approach to cancer.

Recent Videos
Future research will aim to assess the efficacy of PIPAC-MMC plus systemic therapy vs systemic therapy alone in patients with peritoneal tumors.
Although small incision surgery may serve as a conduit to deliver PIPAC-MMC, it may confer benefits in the staging and treatment of peritoneal tumors.
Patients with peritoneal metastases were historically associated with limited survival and low consideration for clinical trials.
Findings from the OVARIO study show that patients with HRR–deficient and BRCA-mutated disease benefitted the most from niraparib/bevacizumab maintenance.
Select comorbidities, ECOG status, and the receipt of radiation were among the differences between a real-world cohort and the RUBY trial population.
Related Content