MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4405043414 · doi:10.1182/blood-2024-200871

Phase 3 Randomized Study of Daratumumab (DARA) + Bortezomib, Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone (VRd) Versus Alone in Patients with Transplant-Ineligible Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma or for Whom Transplant Is Not Planned As Initial Therapy: Analysis of Minimal Residual Disease in the Cepheus Trial

2024· article· en· W4405043414 on OpenAlexaff
Sonja Zweegman, Thierry Façon, Vânia Hungria, Nizar J. Bahlis, Christopher P. Venner, Marc Braunstein, Luděk Pour, Josep Marti Tutusaus, Supratik Basu, Yaël C. Cohen, Morio Matsumoto, Kenshi Suzuki, Cyrille Hulin, Sebastian Grosicki, Wojciech Legieć, Meral Beksaç, Ângelo Maiolino, Hiroyuki Takamatsu, Aurore Perrot, Mehmet Turgut, Weiping Liu, Jianping Wang, Katherine Chastain, Jessica Vermeulen, Maria Krevvata, Lorena Lopez-Masi, Jodi Carey, Melissa Rowe, Saad Z. Usmani

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaInstitute of Cancer ResearchUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLenalidomideDaratumumabBortezomibMedicineMultiple myelomaDexamethasoneInternal medicineOncologyTransplantationThalidomideSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The achievement of minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity is associated with longer-term survival outcomes and has evolved into a strong prognostic clinical endpoint in MM. In the phase 3 CEPHEUS study, DARA in combination with VRd (D-VRd) significantly increased depth of response, including rates of overall MRD negativity, complete response or better (≥CR), and sustained MRD negativity (versus VRd) in patients with transplant-ineligible (TIE) newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) or for whom transplant was not intended as initial therapy (transplant deferred). These deep responses translated into a significantly superior progression-free survival (PFS) for D-VRd versus VRd (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41-0.79; P=0.0005). Here we report an expanded analysis of MRD outcomes from the CEPHEUS study. Methods: CEPHEUS is a multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase 3 study that included eligible patients with NDMM with no intent for transplant based upon age (≥70 yrs), the presence of comorbid conditions likely to hinder transplant or high-dose chemotherapy tolerance, or had deferred first-line transplant. Patients were stratified by International Staging System disease stage and age/transplant eligibility (<70 yrs ineligible, <70 yrs and transplant deferred, ≥70 yrs) and randomized 1:1 to D-VRd or VRd. All patients received eight 21-day cycles of VRd (V: 1.3 mg/m2 SC Days 1, 4, 8, 11; R: 25 mg PO Days 1-14; d: 20 mg PO/IV Days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12), followed by 28-day cycles of Rd (R: 25 mg PO Days 1-21; d: 40 mg PO/IV Days 1, 8, 15, 22). Patients in the D-VRd group also received subcutaneous DARA (1,800 mg co-formulated with recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 [rHuPH20; Halozyme]) weekly in Cycles 1-2, every 3 weeks in Cycles 3-8, and every 4 weeks in Cycles 9+. Treatment continued until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was MRD-negativity rate (10-5). MRD was evaluated via next-generation sequencing (clonoSEQ®) using bone marrow aspirate samples obtained at baseline, at the time of suspected complete response, and at 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 months after the first dose and annually thereafter in patients with complete response. Results: A total of 395 patients (D-VRd, n=197; VRd, n=198) were randomized between December 11, 2018 and October 7, 2019. At a median follow-up of 58.7 months, overall MRD-negativity rates were significantly higher with D-VRd versus VRd at both 10-5 (60.9% vs 39.4%; OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.58-3.55; P<0.0001) and 10-6 (46.2% vs 27.3%; OR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.48-3.40; P=0.0001) sensitivity thresholds. Prespecified subgroup analyses showed a consistent MRD benefit with D-VRd across the majority of subgroups, except for patients with high cytogenetic risk. Rates of sustained MRD negativity (≥12 months) were also higher with D-VRd versus VRd at both 10-5 (48.7% vs 26.3%; OR, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.73-4.00; P<0.0001) and 10-6 (32.0% vs 15.7%; OR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.55-4.11; P=0.0001), with continued benefit of sustained MRD negativity observed with D-VRd for 2 yrs (10-5: 38.6% vs 21.2%; 10-6: 24.9% vs 12.6%) and 3 yrs (10-5: 27.4% vs 13.6%) versus VRd. D-VRd improved landmark MRD-negativity rates and cumulative MRD negativity at all prespecified assessment timepoints (12/18/24/30/36/48/60 months) at both 10-5 and 10-6 depths compared to VRd. PFS trended higher with D-VRd versus VRd in patients with MRD-negative (10-5: HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.35-1.06; 10-6: HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.31-1.41) and MRD-positive status (10-5: HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.54-1.24; 10-6: HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.51-1.06). The estimated 54-mo PFS rates were 81.0% for D-VRd versus 69.5% for VRd in MRD-negative (10-5) patients and 46% versus 33.7% for MRD-positive patients. Conclusion: D-VRd resulted in significantly higher rates of overall and sustained MRD negativity at both 10-5 and 10-6 sensitivity thresholds versus VRd at all timepoints in TIE and transplant-deferred patients with NDMM. This deeper response translated into significant improvements in overall PFS in the D-VRd group. Of patients who achieved MRD-negativity (10-5) with D-VRd, >80% were alive and progression-free at 54 months. These data further support the use of D-VRd as a new standard of care for patients with NDMM that are TIE or for whom transplant is deferred.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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