Advantage of achieving deep response following frontline daratumumab-VTd compared to VRd in transplant-eligible multiple myeloma: multicenter study

Background

The goal of induction therapy for multiple myeloma (MM) is to achieve adequate disease control. Current guidelines favor triplet (bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone; VRd) or quadruplet regimens (daratumumab, bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone; D-VTd). In the absence of a direct comparison between two treatment regimens, we conducted this study to compare the outcomes and safety of VRd and D-VTd.

Methods

Newly diagnosed MM patients aged >18 years who underwent induction therapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) between November 2020 and December 2021 were identified. Finally, patients with VRd (N=37) and those with D-VTd (N=43) were enrolled.

Results

After induction, 10.8% of the VRd group showed stringent complete remission (sCR), 21.6% showed complete response (CR), 35.1% showed very good partial response (VGPR), and 32.4% showed partial response (PR). Of the D-VTd group, 9.3% showed sCR, 34.9% CR, 48.8% VGPR, and 4.2% PR (VGPR or better: 67.6% in VRd vs. 93% in D-VTd, P=0.004). After ASCT, 68.6% of the VRd group showed CR or sCR, while 90.5% of the D-VTd group showed CR or sCR (P=0.016). VRd was associated with an increased incidence of skin rash (P=0.044). Other than rashes, there were no significant differences in terms of adverse events between the two groups.

Conclusion

Our study supports the use of a front-line quadruplet induction regimen containing a CD38 monoclonal antibody for transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed MM.

Triplet RVd Induction for Transplant-Eligible Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The combination of lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVd) has become standard of care for transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM). This study aimed to determine the efficacy of RVd as induction therapy in terms of response rates and survival outcomes of transplant-eligible patients with NDMM.

METHODS

The databases of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched until February 1, 2021. Both randomized controlled trials (RCT) and non-RCTs from the available literature were extracted as one-arm data to assess the efficacy of each triplet regimen for the target patients in terms of response rates and survival rates for transplant-eligible patients with NDMM. Data was summarized as estimated pooled value regarding each evaluated index. Risk of bias of studies was assessed with standard methods.

RESULTS

The findings of 71 studies published from 2008 to 2020 were analyzed. For RVd induction, the overall response rate (ORR), very good partial response or better (≥ VGPR) rate, and complete response or better (≥ CR) rate after induction were 0.91 (95% CI 0.86-0.95), 0.23 (95% CI 0.17-0.29), and 0.56 (95% CI 0.51-0.61), respectively. Indirect comparisons in efficacy were made between RVd and other traditional triplet regimens. RVd induction led to a better ≥ CR rate than bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (VCd) regimen in both postinduction and post-ASCT phase, ≥ CR rate 0.11 (95% CI 0.08-0.15) and 0.21 (95% CI 0.12-0.32), respectively. The 1-year overall survival (OS) rate and 3-year OS rate of RVd regimen were longer than that of bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (VTd), 0.97 (95% CI 0.94-0.98) vs 0.71 (95% CI 0.61-0.80), and 0.90 (95% CI 0.79-0.98) vs 0.70 (95% CI 0.64-0.75), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The RVd induction demonstrated confident response rates and survival benefits for transplant-eligible patients with NDMM.