MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4405040983 · doi:10.1182/blood-2024-201712

Real-World Characteristics and Treatment Patterns of Transplant-Eligible Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Treated with Daratumumab, Bortezomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone (DVRd) As Front-Line Treatment: Results from a Multicenter Chart Review Study

2024· article· en· W4405040983 on OpenAlexaff
Carlyn Tan, Lucio Gordan, Rachel Dileo, Prerna Mewawalla, Sarah Larson, Faith E. Davies, David Oveisi, Niodita Gupta-Werner, Rohan Medhekar, Annelore Cortoos, Marjohn Armoon, Alvi Rahman, Claire Vanden Eynde, Marie‐Hélène Lafeuille, John Reitan, Gary Milkovitch, Joseph Bubalo, Adam Forman, Douglas W. Sborov, Shuchita Kaila, Saad Z. Usmani

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsGroup for Research in Decision Analysis
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDaratumumabLenalidomideBortezomibMedicineDexamethasoneMultiple myelomaInternal medicineOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The treatment paradigm for transplant-eligible (TE) patients (pts) with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) is shifting from frontline (FL) triplet (e.g., bortezomib [V], lenalidomide [R], and dexamethasone [d]) towards FL quadruplet regimens based on the pivotal PERSEUS and GRIFFIN trials, which showed that addition of daratumumab (D) to VRd during induction/consolidation followed by DR maintenance improved response as well as progression-free survival compared to VRd followed by R maintenance. In the real world, pt characteristics and treatment patterns, including maintenance therapy selection, may differ from clinical trial protocols. Therefore, this study aimed to describe the demographic and clinical characteristics as well as treatment patterns (overall and stratified by maintenance regimen) among TE NDMM pts treated with DVRd as FL therapy in the real-world. Methods: A retrospective, multi-center, chart review study was conducted at 9 clinical sites in the US. All eligible adults (except at one site, where eligible pts were randomly selected) with TE NDMM initiating FL DVRd therapy between January 1, 2019, and June 30, 2022, were included (index date = date of initiation). Pts were excluded if they previously received any treatment for MM for ≥30 days, previously participated in a clinical trial related to MM, were treated for any other invasive malignancy within 12 months prior to FL DVRd initiation or had amyloidosis at the index date. Demographic and clinical characteristics were evaluated up to 12 months pre-index and pts were followed until death or the last record of clinical activity. This abstract presents results from an interim analysis. Results: A total of 180 pts initiating FL DVRd were included (median [interquartile range] age: 63 [12.5] years, age ≥65 years: 46.1%; male: 58.3%; White: 67.8%; Black: 11.7%), with a median follow-up of 26.4 months. Of 158 pts with a reported Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score, 43.0% had a score of 0. Moreover, 86 pts had a reported R-ISS stage (I: 32.6%, II: 41.9%, III: 25.6%). Out of 151 pts with available data, 39 (25.8%) had high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRC), including del[17p], t[14;16], or t[4;14]. Baseline demographics and disease characteristics are in line with the pts treated with DVRd in the PERSEUS (median age: 61.0 years; male: 59.4%; White: 93.0%; ECOG 0: 62.3%, HRC: 21.4%) and GRIFFIN (median age: 59.0 years; male: 55.8%; White: 82.0%; Black: 13% ECOG 0: 38.6%, HRC: 16%) trials. During follow-up, the median duration of the DVRd induction phase was 6.1 months and 128 (71.1%) pts received an autologous stem cell transplantation (SCT). Of the 51 pts without SCT, 37 (72.5%) deferred transplant, among which 21 (56.8%) of the deferrals went directly to maintenance therapy, with 14 (66.7%) using >1 agent in maintenance. In the overall population, 17 (9.4%) pts received consolidation therapy and 155 (86.1%) pts received maintenance therapy, including 64 (41.2%) with R monotherapy, 60 (38.7%) with DR, 12 with VR, 7 with DV, 6 with DVR, 4 with V monotherapy, and 2 with D monotherapy. The cohort treated with DVRd induction followed by DR maintenance (DVRd-DR) was slightly older (median: 65 years), had more males (63.3%), and a lower proportion of Black pts (6.7%) than the cohort with DVRd induction followed by R maintenance (DVRd-R; median age: 62 years, males: 56.3%, and Black: 14.1%). More pts in the DVRd-R cohort received a SCT (79.7% vs. 68.3%) than those in the DVRd-DR cohort. Compared to the DVRd-DR cohort, more pts with DVRd-R had ECOG score of ≥1 (63.9% vs. 45.0%). In contrast, the DVRd-DR cohort had more pts with HRC (17.0%) compared to DVRd-R (13.0%). For the DVRd-R and DVRd-DR group, the median duration of the induction phase was 6.4 and 6.1 months, respectively, and median duration of active maintenance was 16.5 and 14.3 months, respectively. Conclusion: Compared to pts in the PERSEUS trial, the TE NDMM pts treated with FL DVRd identified in this real-world chart review study were observed to be older, and with a more diverse racial profile comparable to the US-only GRIFFIN trial population. In the real-world, use of consolidation therapy was less common and DVRd-DR maintenance was used more often in pts aged ≥65 years and in those with higher cytogenetic risk. Also, fewer pts with DVRd-DR than DVRd-R received a SCT. Data on outcomes will be presented at the conference, with additional pts expected.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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