Real-world analysis of D-RVd v. RVd at induction for newly diagnosed transplant eligible multiple myeloma patients.

Abstract

e20024 Background: Daratumumab with lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (D-RVd) induction chemotherapy (IC) has recently been shown to improve depth of treatment response for transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients (pts) compared to RVd alone. The aim of this real-world data (RWD) retrospective study is to assess the efficacy and depth of response of D-RVd IC compared to RVd in transplant-eligible pts with NDMM. Methods: HealthTree Cure Hub for Multiple Myeloma (PMID: 35271305) an online portal for pts with plasma cell dyscrasias, was used to analyze validated RWD of 59 pts who received D-RVd to 121 pts with similar clinical characteristics but who received RVd at IC. Of the total 180 pts, 84 had completed IC and were at the initiation of maintenance (MT) at the time of this analysis. Patients that progressed prior to reaching MT or whose treatment deviated from the line of therapy (D-RVd/RVd IC, autologous stem cell transplant [ASCT], and MT, with or without consolidation) were also excluded. Response during MT was assessed using IMWG criteria. Results: From the 180 pts reviewed, 98 were excluded, 5 D-RVd and 10 RVD pts progressed before reaching MT, 11 D-RVd and 31 RVd pts deviated from the line of therapy, and 41 pts had not reached the MT phase at the time of the analysis. The remaining 84 pts (18 D-RVd pts and 64 RVd pts) were analyzed. Demographics and clinical characteristics were well-balanced between groups. The median age of both groups was 65 (range, 42-81), and over half were female (51%). The majority of pts (87%) had R-ISS stage I or II, and 45 pts (25%) had high-risk genetics (by mSMART 3.0). The overall response rate (ORR) was significantly higher for the D-RVd group compared to the RVd group at the initiation of MT (100% vs 62%; odds ratio, 22.4; P = 0.03). As assessed prior to the start of MT the depth of response was more favorable with D-RVd, with the odds ratio of achieving a VGPR or better at MT being significantly higher than RVd (89% to 58%; odds ratio (OR), 5.8; P = 0.03), complete response (CR) (78% to 47%; OR, 3.97; P = 0.03), stringent CR (sCR) (22% to 16%; OR, 1.5; P = 0.51), and minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity (17% to 11%; OR, 1.6; P = 0.51). With a median follow-up of 17 months for the D-RVd group (n = 18) and 29 months for the RVd group (n = 64), 0 events of disease progression occurred in the D-RVd group compared to 23 events in the RVd group. Median PFS was not reached in the D-RVd group and a Kaplan-Meier probability indicated a median PFS of 41 months for the RVd group. Conclusions: These data document improved response rate in transplant-eligible NDMM pts who received daratumumab with RVd as an IC therapy. D-RVd also improved PFS with significant differences between the two groups seen at 12 and 18 months. These results add to the accumulating data that the addition of daratumumab with RVd may be the new standard of care for the aforementioned patient population.