MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3213172814 · doi:10.1182/blood-2021-144421

Sustained Improvement in Health-Related Quality of Life in Transplant-Ineligible Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Treated with Daratumumab, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone Versus Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone: Update of the Phase 3 MAIA Trial

2021· article· en· W3213172814 on OpenAlexaff
Aurore Perrot, Thierry Façon, Shaji Kumar, Torben Plesner, Robert Z. Orlowski, Philippe Moreau, Nizar J. Bahlis, Supratik Basu, Hareth Nahi, Cyrille Hulin, Hang Quach, Hartmut Goldschmidt, Michael O’Dwyer, Chris Venner, Katja Weisel, Joseph R. Mace, Noopur Raje, Mourad Tiab, M. Macro, Laurent Frenzel, Xavier Leleu, Kevin Liu, John Fastenau, Katharine S. Gries, Kai Fai Ho, Pankaj Mistry, Brenda Tromp, Maria Delioukina, Jessica Vermeulen, Saad Z. Usmani

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Cancer ResearchUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLenalidomideDexamethasoneDaratumumabMultiple myelomaMedicineInternal medicineOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a chronic hematologic malignancy with a high symptom burden that can have a substantial negative impact on patients' (pts) health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The introduction of novel triplet regimens for newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) has extended progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS); however, adverse events and demanding administration and monitoring schedules have a further negative effect on HRQoL, especially among pts who are transplant ineligible (TIE) due to older age and/or frailty. Optimizing initial treatment is particularly important in older pts, many of whom receive only 1 line of therapy. The phase 3 MAIA trial compared daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-Rd) vs lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in TIE pts with NDMM. At a median follow-up of 28 months, D-Rd significantly prolonged PFS and was associated with faster and sustained clinically meaningful improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) vs Rd. Results of an updated analysis with longer follow-up recently confirmed a significant benefit in OS with D-Rd vs Rd as well as a continued significant PFS benefit and higher rates of complete response or better and very good partial response or better. Here we present an update of the HRQoL analysis with additional follow-up. Methods: MAIA (NCT02252172) is a randomized, open-label, active controlled, multicenter, phase 3 study of TIE pts with NDMM who were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive D-Rd or Rd until disease progression (PD) or unacceptable toxicity. PROs were recorded using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30-item (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale. EORTC QLQ-C30 has 30 items comprising 5 functional scales (physical, role, emotional, cognitive, and social functioning), 1 global health status (GHS) scale, 3 symptom scales (fatigue, nausea and vomiting, and pain) and 6 single items (dyspnea, insomnia, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea, and financial difficulties). Questionnaires were completed at baseline, on day 1 of cycles 3, 6, 9, and 12 for year 1, and every 6 months thereafter until PD. Analyses were conducted on all pts with a baseline and ≥1 post-baseline PRO assessment. Pts were censored at PD or discontinuation of study treatment. Thresholds for meaningful improvement and worsening were defined a priori based on published literature (≥10-point change). Treatment effect was analyzed using a mixed-effects model for repeated measurements including baseline value, visit, treatment, visit by treatment interaction, and randomization stratification factors as fixed effects and individual subject as random effect. Results: At a median follow-up of 56.2 months, discontinuation rates were lower with D-Rd than Rd (56.8% vs 80.8%). For GHS, physical functioning, fatigue, pain, and dyspnea, PROs that are particularly relevant to pts with MM, a numerically greater proportion of pts achieved a meaningful improvement with D-Rd vs Rd (Table 1). Differences were significant for physical functioning, fatigue, and dyspnea. The proportion of pts achieving a meaningful worsening on therapy was similar in both treatment groups (Table 1). The median time to improvement was numerically shorter with D-Rd vs Rd for physical functioning and pain and with Rd vs D-Rd for GHS and fatigue; differences were not significant (Table 2). The median time to worsening of fatigue was similar between groups, numerically longer for D-Rd vs Rd for GHS, and significantly longer with D-Rd than Rd for physical functioning, pain, and dyspnea (Table 2). Median time to worsening of pain with D-Rd vs Rd was 39.43 vs 17.97 months, reflective of an additional ~21 months without worsening pain among pts treated with D-Rd. Between-group differences for least squares mean change from baseline for these 5 PROs favored D-Rd vs Rd at all assessment time points except cycle 3 for physical functioning and cycle 6 for fatigue; differences were significant at ≥1 timepoint for each scale. Conclusions: These updated PRO analyses from the MAIA study demonstrate sustained and clinically meaningful improvements in HRQoL with D-Rd vs Rd with almost 5 years of follow-up. These results are consistent with the clinical benefits of superior PFS, OS, and deep responses observed with D-Rd compared with Rd and support the use of D-Rd in older pts. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Perrot: Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kumar: Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Tenebio: Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Plesner: Takeda: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Other: Advisor, Research Funding; Genentech: Other: Advisor, Research Funding; CSL Behring: Other: Advisor; AbbVie: Other: Advisor, Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Advisor, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: Advisor, Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding. Orlowski: Amgen, Inc., BioTheryX, Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, EcoR1 Capital LLC, Genzyme, GSK Biologicals, Janssen Biotech, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc., Neoleukin Corporation, Oncopeptides AB, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi-Aventis, and Takeda P: Consultancy, Honoraria; CARsgen Therapeutics, Celgene, Exelixis, Janssen Biotech, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Other: Clinical research funding; Asylia Therapeutics, Inc., BioTheryX, Inc., and Heidelberg Pharma, AG.: Other: Laboratory research funding; Asylia Therapeutics, Inc.: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Patents & Royalties; Amgen, Inc., BioTheryX, Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Forma Therapeutics, Genzyme, GSK Biologicals, Janssen Biotech, Juno Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc., Kite Pharma, Neoleukin Corporation, Oncopeptides AB, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, I: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moreau: Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. Bahlis: BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria. Nahi: XNK Therapeutics AB: Consultancy. Hulin: Takeda: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; abbvie: Honoraria. Quach: CSL: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Antengene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen/Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Goldschmidt: Chugai: Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Johns Hopkins University: Other: Grant; Molecular Partners: Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or P

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments→French-language works237,207→