I do think that we are getting much closer biologically, but we’re not yet at the point where I routinely use a biomarker to really guide antigen selection at this time. We’re learning a lot about mechanisms of resistance, whether that might be antigen loss or mutation, antigen downregulation, T cell fitness, or other aspects of tumor and immune biology. But we still need prospectively validated biomarkers or assays that can reliably tell us which antigen or therapy would a patient be most likely to benefit at a certain time...
I do think that we are getting much closer biologically, but we’re not yet at the point where I routinely use a biomarker to really guide antigen selection at this time. We’re learning a lot about mechanisms of resistance, whether that might be antigen loss or mutation, antigen downregulation, T cell fitness, or other aspects of tumor and immune biology. But we still need prospectively validated biomarkers or assays that can reliably tell us which antigen or therapy would a patient be most likely to benefit at a certain time. So ultimately, I would want us to have a molecular or functional profile when we are making major treatment decisions for our patients and use that information to help us select the right target and the right therapy at the right time. But currently, we’re still largely sequencing based on prior therapies, clinical disease characteristics, access, and toxicity, although I do believe that the future very much will be biology and biomarker driven to help us personalize treatment for each and all of our patients with multiple myeloma.
This transcript is AI-generated. While we strive for accuracy, please verify this copy with the video.