Treatment attrition rates and relevant risk factors in multiple myeloma: A real-world study in China

Response adaptive salvage treatment with daratumumab-lenalidomide-dexamethasone for newly diagnosed transplant-eligible multiple myeloma patients failing front-line bortezomib-based induction therapy-ALLG MM21

In Australia, bortezomib-based induction (V-IND) is used in >90% of newly diagnosed transplant-eligible multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Four cycles of V-IND with bortezomib-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone or bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone are available via the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme prior to autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Patients who demonstrate suboptimal response or who are refractory to V-IND demonstrate inferior survival, representing a subgroup of MM where an unmet need persists. We evaluated an early, response-adapted approach in these patients by switching to an intensive sequential therapeutic strategy incorporating daratumumab-lenalidomide-dexamethasone-based (DRd) salvage, high-dose melphalan ASCT followed by DRd consolidation and R maintenance. The overall response rate following four cycles of DRd salvage was 72% (95% credible interval: 57.9-82.4); prespecified, dual, Bayesian proof-of-concept criteria were met. Euro-flow minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity was 46% in the intention-to-treat population and 79% in the evaluable population following 12 cycles of DRd consolidation. At the 24-month follow-up, median progression-free survival and overall survival were not reached. DRd salvage was well tolerated with grade 3 and 4 events reported in 24% and 8% respectively. Response-adapted DRd combined with ASCT achieves high rates of MRD negativity and durable disease control in this functional high-risk group.

Daratumumab-based immunotherapy vs. lenalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a systemic review

Background

Since no randomized controlled trials have directly compared the efficacy and safety of immunotherapy with daratumumab versus lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone (RVD) in the frontline treatment of transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (TIE-NDMM), this study systematically reviewed the clinical studies regarding immunotherapy with daratumumab and RVD regimen in the treatment of TIE-NDMM to explore the optimization direction of the best first-line therapy.

Methods

The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched to collect studies on regimens containing daratumumab or RVD/RVD-lite for TIE-NDMM. Pooled and meta-analysis was then performed to compare the overall response rate (ORR), stringent complete remission (sCR) and CR rate, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and treatment-related discontinuation rate between daratumumab-containing immunotherapy regimen and RVD/RVD-lite regimen by using R 4.3.1 software.

Results

Nine prospective clinical trials were included, including 1795 TIE-NDMM or NDMM without intent for immediate ASCT. Among them, 938 patients were treated with daratumumab-based immunotherapy and 857 with RVD/RVD-lite regimens. Meta-analysis results showed that The daratumumab-based regimen showed a significantly higher CR/sCR rate than RVD/RVD-lite for TIE-NDMM (47% vs. 24%, P<0.01). The median PFS of the daratumumab-based and RVD/RVD-lite groups were 52.6 months and 35.1 months respectively (HR 0.77, 95%CI, 0.66-0.90). The median OS of both groups was not reached, and there were no significant differences in OS between the two groups (HR 1.03, 95%CI, 0.86-1.23). The therapy discontinuation rate led by adverse events was significantly higher in the RVD/RVD-lite group than in the daratumumab-based regimen group for the TIE-NDMM (16% vs. 7%, P=0.03).

Conclusion

This meta-analysis suggests that daratumumab-containing immunotherapy is superior to RVD in the depth of treatment efficacy, progression-free survival, and lower treatment-related discontinuation rates. Limited by the lack of head-to-head clinical trials, this conclusion needs to be verified by concurrent cohort studies.