MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7108455829 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-3988

Factors impacting treatment choice with a CD38 antibody, immunomodulator, proteasome inhibitor, and dexamethasone in first line multiple myeloma patients: A real-world US study

2025· article· en· W7108455829 sur OpenAlexaff

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensMD Precision (Canada)
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBortezomibLenalidomideMultiple myelomaDexamethasoneRegimenThalidomidePomalidomidePerformance statusCarfilzomib

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background In 2023, the NCCN first listed a quadruplet (quad) regimen of a CD38 Antibody, Immunomodulator, Proteasome Inhibitor, and Dexamethasone for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients (pts), based on the GRIFFIN study. The FDA approved daratumumab, lenalidomide (R), bortezomib (V), and dexamethasone (d) (dara-RVd) for transplant-eligible pts in July 2024, and isatuximab-RVd for transplant-ineligible pts in September 2024. The phase 3 PERSEUS trial further confirmed the superiority of D-RVd over RVd. This real-world (RW) study aimed to identify factors influencing quad induction therapy in first-line therapy (LOT-1) NDMM pts. Methods This retrospective analysis used data from the IntegraConnect PrecisionQ RW de-identified database, consisting of >3 million cancer pts across >500 care sites in the United States. The study included MM pts, age ≥18, initiating LOT 1 therapy between January 1, 2024, and March 31, 2025. LOT 1 is further defined as drugs given within 60 days of the initial induction start date. Pts with a second primary cancer were excluded unless chart curation confirmed the diagnosis of MM as the primary malignancy. Pts considered quad eligible were age ≤80 and Eastern Cooperative Group performance status (ECOG PFS) ≤2. Pts without an ECOG score at LOT 1 start were excluded. Quad therapy was operationally defined as receipt of all four drug classes within the first 60 days, irrespective of sequencing or care setting. Quad eligible pts were assessed to evaluate whether age, gender, race, ECOG PFS, renal function as defined by estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (<30,30-60,>60), or high risk NDMM cytogenetics including deletion 17p, t4;14 or 1q (CG-risk) impacted treatment selection, with none vs. 1 vs. ≥2 high risk abnormalities used to stratify cytogenetic risk accordingly. Only pts who were manually abstracted were included in the analysis for cytogenetics. Only pts with eGFR results within 30 days of first line were evaluated for whether eGFR results impacted treatment. Data are presented using descriptive statistics and comparisons were performed using chi-squared analysis (p<0.05 vs NS). Results Of 1,721 quad-eligible pts with NDMM who initiated LOT 1 therapy, 54.2% were male, 52.9% were White, and the median age was 69 (IQ range 61–74 years). Overall, 47.1% received a quad, with 38.1% (n = 357) in Q1 2024 and 53.4% (n = 334) in Q1 2025. Quad use was higher in pts ≤65 years of age at 55.1% (n = 650) than those >65 years of age at 42.2% (n = 1071) (p<0.01). Gender had no significant impact on quad use, with rates of 46.5% for females (n = 787) and 47.6% for males (n = 933). Race had no significant impact on quad use, with rates of 49.1% for White (n = 911), 42.4% for Black/African American (n = 238), and 46.2% for Other (n = 572). For ECOG PFS, 48.8% of ECOG 0 (n = 875), 46.9% of ECOG 1 (n= 659), and 39.6% of ECOG 2 (n = 187) pts received a quad (NS). Quad use was as follows by eGFR (n = 242): 46.8% in eGFR >60 pts (n =173), 36.0% in eGFR 30-60 pts (n = 50), and 26.3% in eGFR <30 pts (n = 19) (NS). Quad use was as follows by NDMM CG-risk (n = 64): 21.1% in negative pts (n = 19), 63% in ≤1 positive pts (n = 38), and 71% in ≥2 positive pts (n = 7) (p<0.01). Conclusion Despite NCCN recommendations and FDA approvals, this RW study shows an important treatment gap as only 53% of eligible pts received a quad regimen by Q1 2025 across >500 care sites. Age and NDMM CG-risk were found to be statistically significant factors in treatment selection. Race, ECOG PFS and renal function showed differences in quad use, but were not statistically significant. Further research is warranted to pinpoint logistical obstacles to quad uptake, and planned follow-up analyses in this cohort will compare real-world progression-free survival as well as healthcare-resource utilization between quadruplet and triplet induction to quantify the added clinical value of early use of quadruplet therapy in NDMM. These data also suggest increasing educational awareness of emerging evidence and evolving standards of care are essential to ensure clinical practice keeps pace with therapeutic advances.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,006
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,012

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,026
Tête enseignante GPT0,325
Écart entre enseignants0,299 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments→Travaux en français237 207→