Sustained Improvement in Health‐Related Quality of Life in Transplant‐Ineligible Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Treated With Daratumumab, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone: <scp>MAIA</scp> Final Analysis of Patient‐Reported Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This final post hoc analysis evaluated patient-reported outcomes from the Phase 3 MAIA study of daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-Rd) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) after median 64.5-month follow-up in transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), including patient subgroups. METHODS: Key scales from the EORTC QLQ-C30 (global health status [GHS], physical functioning, pain, and fatigue) were assessed. Scores were evaluated every 3 months for 1 year, then every 6 months until disease progression. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population (n = 737) included 46.3% frail, 35.4% 70 to < 75 years old, and 43.6% ≥ 75 years old. D-Rd-treated patients showed improvements from baseline that were sustained over 5 years in the intent-to-treat population and across subgroups by age, frailty, and bone lesions. Greater proportions of patients treated with D-Rd versus Rd achieved minimally important changes for improvement at cycle 36 (year ~3) in GHS (odds ratio, 1.84 [95% CI, 1.16-2.91]), physical functioning (1.93 [1.18-3.14]), pain (1.41 [0.90-2.22]), and fatigue (2.00 [1.24-3.23]). Greater proportions of patients with bone lesions improved with D-Rd versus Rd on GHS and physical functioning. CONCLUSIONS: In transplant-ineligible patients with NDMM, D-Rd improved health-related quality of life over a 5-year period versus Rd. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02252172.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".