MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310107076 · doi:10.1182/blood-2022-163555

Daratumumab Plus Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone in Patients with Transplant-Ineligible Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: Maia Age Subgroup Analysis

2022· article· en· W4310107076 on OpenAlexaff
Thierry Façon, Shaji Kumar, Katja Weisel, Saad Z. Usmani, Philippe Moreau, Torben Plesner, Robert Z. Orlowski, Nizar J. Bahlis, Supratik Basu, Hareth Nahi, Cyrille Hulin, Hang Quach, Michael O’Dwyer, Aurore Perrot, Christopher P. Venner, Noopur Raje, Mourad Tiab, Margaret Macro, Laurent Frenzel, Xavier Leleu, Huiling Pei, Robin Carson, Fredrik Borgsten, Hartmut Goldschmidt

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Cancer ResearchUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDaratumumabLenalidomideMultiple myelomaMedicineDexamethasoneSubgroup analysisInternal medicineOncologyPomalidomidePediatricsConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Daratumumab (DARA) is a human IgGκ monoclonal antibody targeting CD38 with a direct on-tumor and immunomodulatory mechanism of action. DARA is approved in combination with standard of care in patients (pts) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) and as monotherapy and in combination with standard of care for pts with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. In the randomized, phase 3 MAIA study (NCT02252172), DARA plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (D-Rd) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) alone was evaluated in transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM. In the primary analysis of MAIA (median follow-up, 28.0 months), D-Rd significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) versus Rd alone (Facon T, N Engl J Med 2019). Additionally, D-Rd significantly prolonged PFS versus Rd for pts aged ≥75 years (median, not reached [NR] vs 31.9 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.92; P = 0.0146; Usmani SZ, ASCO 2019). In an analysis of overall survival (OS; median follow-up, 56.2 months), D-Rd showed a significant reduction in the risk of death versus Rd alone (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53-0.86; P = 0.0013; Facon T, Lancet Oncol 2021). Here, we present a subgroup analysis of MAIA pts aged <75 years, <70 years, and ≥70 to <75 years. Methods: Pts with NDMM ineligible for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplant were randomized 1:1 to receive D-Rd or Rd alone. All pts received 28-day cycles of lenalidomide (R: 25 mg orally on Days 1-21) and dexamethasone (d: 40 mg orally on Days 1, 8, 15, and 22) with or without DARA (16 mg/kg intravenously once weekly in Cycles 1-2, once every 2 weeks in Cycles 3-6, and once every 4 weeks thereafter) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was PFS. Key secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), OS, and minimal residual disease (MRD)-negativity rate (10-5 sensitivity, clonoSEQ® version 2.0). Results: Of 737 randomized pts (D-Rd, n = 368; Rd, n = 369), 416 (56%) pts were aged <75 years (D-Rd, n = 208; Rd, n = 208), 155 (21%) pts were aged <70 years (D-Rd, n = 78; Rd, n = 77), and 261 (35%) pts were aged ≥70 to <75 years (D-Rd, n = 130; Rd, n = 131). At a median follow-up of 64.5 months, PFS was improved for pts receiving D-Rd versus Rd who were aged <75 years (median, NR vs 37.5 months; HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.39-0.68; P <0.0001; Figure A), <70 years (median, NR vs 39.2 months; HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.21-0.56; P <0.0001), and ≥70 to <75 years (median, 61.9 vs 37.5 months; HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.45-0.89; P = 0.0079; Figure B). The estimated 60-month PFS rates were higher for pts receiving D-Rd versus Rd across all subgroups: <75 years (57.4% vs 33.6%), <70 years (67.2% vs 28.7%), and ≥70 to <75 years (51.6% vs 36.6%). OS was also improved for pts receiving D-Rd versus Rd who were aged <75 years (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.43-0.83; P = 0.0017), <70 years (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.27-0.90; P = 0.0179), and ≥70 to <75 years (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.43-0.96; P = 0.0274). The estimated 60-month OS rates were higher for pts receiving D-Rd versus Rd across all subgroups: <75 years (73.9% vs 58.8%), <70 years (79.9% vs 61.7%), and ≥70 to <75 years (70.3% vs 57.0%). The ORR was higher for D-Rd versus Rd in pts aged <75 years (95.2% vs 81.7%; P <0.0001), <70 years (93.6% vs 80.5%; P = 0.0156), and ≥70 to <75 years (96.2% vs 82.4%; P = 0.0004). Increased rates of MRD negativity (10-5) were observed with D-Rd versus Rd in pts aged <75 years (36.1% vs 12.0%; odds ratio [OR], 4.13; 95% CI, 2.49-6.84; P <0.0001), <70 years (35.9% vs 11.7%; OR, 4.23; 95% CI, 1.84-9.75; P = 0.0006), and ≥70 to <75 years (36.2% vs 12.2%; OR, 4.07; 95% CI, 2.16-7.67; P <0.0001). Conclusions: At a median follow-up of 64.5 months, D-Rd improved efficacy versus Rd alone in subgroups of pts aged <75, <70, and ≥70 to <75 years. D-Rd demonstrated clinically meaningful benefit across all endpoints, including PFS, OS, ORR, and MRD negativity. These results, along with those presented previously (Usmani SZ, ASCO 2019), support the frontline use of DARA-based combination regimens in pts aged <75 years and ≥75 years with transplant-ineligible NDMM. Figure 1View largeDownload PPTFigure 1View largeDownload PPT Close modal

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.013
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicMultiple Myeloma Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207