All content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals only. By acknowledging this message and accessing the information on this website you are confirming that you are a Healthcare Professional. If you are a patient or carer, please visit the International Myeloma Foundation or Myeloma crowd.
The Multiple Myeloma Hub uses cookies on this website. They help us give you the best online experience. By continuing to use our website without changing your cookie settings, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our updated Cookie Policy
The Multiple Myeloma Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the Multiple Myeloma Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The Multiple Myeloma Hub and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.
Why the initial efficacy observed with melflufen + dexamethasone has not translated into improved overall survival (OS) in the OCEAN phase III trial.
During the 18th International Myeloma Workshop, the Multiple Myeloma Hub spoke with Pieter Sonneveld, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, NL. We asked, Why the initial efficacy observed with melflufen + dexamethasone has not translated into improved overall survival (OS) in the OCEAN phase III trial.
OCEAN phase III trial: Why the initial efficacy observed with melflufen + dex has not improved OS
In this video, Sonneveld discusses results from the OCEAN phase III (NCT03151811), multi-center trial, comparing melphalan flufenamide (melflufen) + dexamethasone versus pomalidomide + dexamethasone.
Related articles
Newsletter
Subscribe to get the best content related to multiple myeloma delivered to your inbox