P09 DARATUMUMAB PLUS LENALIDOMIDE AND DEXAMETHASONE (D-RD) VERSUS LENALIDOMIDE AND DEXAMETHASONE (RD) ALONE IN TRANSPLANT-INELIGIBLE PATIENTS WITH NEWLY DIAGNOSED MULTIPLE MYELOMA (NDMM): UPDATED ANALYSIS OF THE PHASE 3 MAIA STUDY
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: Daratumumab is a human IgGκ monoclonal antibody that is approved as monotherapy and in combination with standard-of-care regimens for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma and in combination with standard-of-care regimens for NDMM. In the primary analysis of the phase 3 MAIA study (median follow-up, 28.0 months), D-Rd significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) and the minimal residual disease (MRD)–negativity rate (10–5 sensitivity) versus Rd alone in transplant-ineligible patients with NDMM. With longer follow-up (median follow-up, 56.2 months), D-Rd significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus Rd. Here, we present an analysis of MAIA after a median follow-up of 64.5 months. Patients and methods: Patients with NDMM ineligible for high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem cell transplant were randomized 1:1 to Rd ± D. Randomization was stratified by International Staging System disease stage (I vs II vs III), region (North America vs other), and age (<75 vs ≥75 years). All patients received 28-day cycles of Rd (R: 25 mg PO on Days 121; d: 40 mg PO on Days 1, 8, 15, and 22). In the D-Rd arm, D (16 mg/kg IV) was given once weekly in Cycles 12, once every 2 weeks in Cycles 3-6, and once every 4 weeks thereafter. In both groups, patients were treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. PFS was the primary endpoint; key secondary endpoints included MRDnegativity rate (10–5 sensitivity, clonoSEQ® version 2.0), overall response rate (ORR), OS, and safety. Results: A total of 737 patients were randomized (D-Rd, n=368; Rd, n=369). At a median follow-up of 64.5 months, PFS was improved with D-Rd versus Rd (median, 61.9 vs 34.4 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-0.67; P<0.0001). D-Rd reduced the risk of death by 34% versus Rd. Median OS was not reached with D-Rd versus 65.5 months with Rd (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53-0.83; P=0.0003), with estimated 60-month OS rates of 66.6% and 53.6%, respectively. ORR was higher for D-Rd versus Rd (92.9% vs 81.6%; P<0.0001), as were rates of MRD negativity (32.1% vs 11.1%; P<0.0001) and sustained MRD negativity lasting ≥12 months (18.8% vs 4.1%; P<0.0001). The most common (≥15% of patients in either arm) grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; D-Rd/Rd) were neutropenia (54.1%/37.0%), anemia (17.0%/21.6%), pneumonia (19.5%/10.7%), and lymphopenia (16.5%/11.2%); grade 3/4 infection rates were 42.6%/29.6%. Pneumonia was the most common serious TEAE in both groups (18.7%/10.7%). Rates of treatment discontinuation due to TEAEs were lower with D-Rd (14.6%) versus Rd (23.8%). Conclusions: In this analysis of MAIA after a median follow-up of >5 years, the addition of DARA to Rd continued to demonstrate PFS and OS benefits in transplant-ineligible patients with NDMM. D-Rd also achieved higher MRD-negativity and ≥12-month sustained MRD-negativity rates versus Rd alone. No new safety concerns were observed with longer follow-up. These results continue to support the frontline use of D-Rd in transplant-ineligible patients with NDMM. Additional OS results based on extended follow-up will be presented.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».