MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417009454 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-2798

Real-world experience with first-line regimens in transplant-ineligible patients with multiple myeloma

2025· article· en· W4417009454 on OpenAlexaffabout
Danyal Ladha, Donna Reece, Guido Lancman, Arleigh McCurdy, Engin Gul, Smriti Sharma, Jiandong Su, Martha Louzada, Michael P. Chu, Alissa Visram, Darrell White, Julie Stakiw, Muhammad Aslam, Michaël Sébag, Rami Kotb, Victor H. Jimenez‐Zepeda, Ève St‐Hilaire, Tony Reiman, Kevin Song, Christopher P. Venner, Rayan Kaedbey, Debra Bergstrom, Jesse Shustik, Ashley Freeman, Philip Kuruvilla, Richard LeBlanc

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsWilliam Osler Health SystemNewfoundland and Labrador Centre for Applied Health ResearchSt. John’s Health Sciences CentreJewish General HospitalBC Cancer AgencySaint John Regional HospitalHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontDr. Georges-L.-Dumont University Hospital CentreJuravinski Cancer CentreInstitute of Cancer ResearchMcGill UniversityOttawa HospitalCancerCare ManitobaOccupational Cancer Research CentreSaskatchewan Cancer AgencyUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of AlbertaQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentrePrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLenalidomideMultiple myelomaBortezomibRegimenContext (archaeology)Retrospective cohort studyObservational studyChemotherapy regimenClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Regimens based on bortezomib and lenalidomide have been a mainstay of treatment for transplant-ineligible (TI) newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients (pts). Recently, the phase 3 MAIA trial established DRd as the new standard of care (SoC), with a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 61.9 months compared to 34.4 months with Rd and a significant benefit in overall survival (OS). In Canada, DRd was funded via the public healthcare system for first-line NDMM TI patients in 2022. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the initial real-world outcomes of this regimen in the context of treatments used prior to the introduction of anti-CD38 antibodies in frontline therapy. Methods We performed a retrospective observational study using the Canadian Myeloma Research Group Database (CMRG-DB), a prospectively maintained disease-specific database with >10,000 pts enrolled in 21 centres across Canada. All NDMM TI pts >18 years treated with CyBorD, Rd, RVd, or DRd as first-line treatment between 01/01/2018 – 30/11/2024 were included. Pts were excluded if they were treated on a clinical trial, did not receive any treatment within 1 year of diagnosis, underwent stem cell transplant ≤1 year of diagnosis, or had amyloidosis, POEMS, or plasma cell leukemia. The primary objective of the study was to determine the following outcomes observed with these first-line regimens: early mortality rate (at 6 months and 1 year), overall response rate (ORR), best response, PFS, and OS. Secondary objectives included assessing the pattern of usage of these different regimens between 01/2018 -11/2024, and identification of variables affecting 1-year early mortality, ORR, and PFS by regimen. Descriptive analysis was used to report demographics, disease characteristics and treatment responses by regimen. Baseline characteristics were summarized by mean, standard deviation, median and ranges as appropriate. Time to event analyses were used to assess PFS and OS. Survival curves were constructed according to the Kaplan-Meier method and impact of covariates of interest were assessed using the log rank test. Results A total of 1,085 pts were eligible. Regimens included: CyBorD in 382 (35.2%), Rd in 292 (26.9%), RVd in 178 (16.4%) and DRd in 233 (21.5%). The median follow-up in months (95% CI) in these 4 cohorts was 41.0 (35.2, 44.7), 50.2 (45.4, 54.5), 29.7 (24.4, 34.4) and 9.3 (7.6, 11.3), respectively. The 6-month and 1-year mortality rates were 6.5% (95% CI 4.3-9.5) and 11.8% (95% CI 8.6-15.4) for CyBorD, 7.9% (95% CI 5.1-11.6) and 14.7% (95% CI 10.9-19.3) for Rd, 4.5% (95% CI 2.0-8.7) and 7.9% (95% CI 4.4-12.8) for RVd and 4.3% (95% CI 2.1-7.8) and 5.6% (95% CI 3.0-9.4) for DRd. The ORR/≥VGPR by regimen included: 95.9%/72.3% with RVd, 94.5%/71.9% with DRd, 89.2%/58.9% with CyBorD and 79.1%/45.3% with Rd. Median PFS was 41.4 months in RVd pts, 28.6 months in Rd pts and 20.2 months in CyBorD pts; an accurate median PFS was not yet available in DRd pts due to short follow-up. However, CyBorD pts had a statistically significant shorter median PFS, while there was no difference between the other regimens to date. Median OS was not yet reached for DRd, 62.2 months for RVd, 60 months for CyBorD, and 55.5 months for Rd (p=0.061). Of the 1,085 pts, 432 (39.8%) have received a 2nd line of therapy. The use of DRd in Canada significantly increased from 1.1% in 2020 to 30.3% in 2022, and was the most common regimen in 2023 (77.5%) and 2024 (78.4%). Conclusion In this real-world retrospective study, we demonstrate that, after public funding, DRd rapidly became the most frequently utilized first-line treatment in Canadian patients with TI NDMM. Early mortality rates at 6 months and 1 year were very low with DRd. Response rates with DRd and RVd were the highest and each produced an ORR of approximately 95% and ≥VGPR of 72%. CyBorD patients had a significantly shorter PFS. However, an accurate evaluation of DRd's PFS efficacy is premature due to its recent introduction into the Canadian treatment algorithm and short follow-up period (9.3 months vs 29+ months in other cohorts). More mature results of DRd, in addition to analyses of potential variables correlated with outcomes, will be assessed in the future. Nevertheless, our findings suggest that both RVd and DRd are highly effective options for treatment of TI NDMM.Financial support: CMRG received financial support from Janssen Inc. for the conduct of this study.

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)0.005
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 score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.278
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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