Elotuzumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: Extended 4‐year follow‐up and analysis of relative progression‐free survival from the randomized ELOQUENT‐2 trial

Abstract Introduction: The effectiveness of thalidomide based regimens (TBR) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma is well established. However, there are still limited data regarding the long term follow up after such regimens and the outcome of patients when they progress and they receive further treatment. In order to answer these questions we evaluated a series of 114 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who were treated with TBR. None of these patients had previously received thalidomide, bortezomib or lenalidomide. Patients and Methods: All patients were treated with thalidomide and dexamethasone with or without other oral agents. More specifically 41 patients had received continuous thalidomide and pulse dexamethasone, 25 patients clarithromycin, continuous thalidomide and pulse dexamethasone, 43 patients intermittent thalidomide, pulse dexamethasone and cyclophosphamide and 5 patients continuous thalidomide, pulse dexamethasone and cyclophosphamide. Type of treatment at the time of progression after TBR, response to this treatment and progression free survival were recorded for each patient. Moreover, patients who received novel agents after progression to TBR, were divided into 2 subgroups, according to their resistance to thalidomide. In group A, patients had refractory or progressive myeloma while on TBR or within 2 months after discontinuation of TBR. In group B, myeloma progressed more than 2 months after discontinuation of TBR. Results: Among the 114 patients, 41 had not responded to TBR and 73 (64%) had achieved at least a partial response. The median PFS for all patients was 8 months. As of June 2007, 10 patients remain without progression from 28 to 81 months (median 54 months). Eight patients remain off treatment and without progression for a median of 56 months (range 28–81). Patients who did not respond to or progressed after TBR were analyzed for further treatment and outcome. Thirty eight patients (37%) died before receiving further treatment, 23 patients (23%) received conventional chemotherapy and 41 patients (40%) received continuous thalidomide and dexamethasone +/− clarithromycin or cyclophosphamide (17 patients), bortezomib and dexamethasone (7 patients), melphalan-bortezomib-dexamethasone and intermittent thalidomide (12 patients) or lenalidomide with dexamethasone (5 patients). Among these 41 patients, 24 were classified in group A (thalidomide resistant) and 17 in group B. Overall 17 (41%) achieved at least partial response after retreatment with novel agent-based regimens. A response was observed in 46% of patients in group A and in 35% of patients in group B. The median progression free survival of the 41 patients who received retreatment with novel agents was 9.2 months and the median survival was 17 months. Among the 23 patients who received conventional chemotherapy only five (21%) patients responded and the progression free survival and the median survival were 5.3 and 10.2 months, respectively. Conclusions: After an oral TBR regimen 6 (5%) patients remain without treatment and free of progression for more than 4 years. A significant number of patients who progressed after TBR and who received further treatment which included a novel agent achieved a response, including several patients who were resistant to TBR.

Download Full-text

Efficacy of Daratumumab, Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone Versus Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone Alone for Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma Among Patients with 1 to 3 Prior Lines of Therapy Based on Previous Treatment Exposure: Updated Analysis of Pollux

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.489.489 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 489-489 ◽

Cited By ~ 13

Author(s):

Philippe Moreau ◽

Jonathan L. Kaufman ◽

Heather J. Sutherland ◽

Marc Lalancette ◽

Hila Magen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Statistical Significance ◽

Previous Treatment ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Free Survival ◽

Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Abstract Introduction: Daratumumab is an anti-CD38 IgGκ monoclonal antibody that has been combined successfully with lenalidomide and dexamethasone. The combination of daratumumab with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (DRd) has been compared with lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (Rd) in patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in a randomized phase 3 study (Dimopoulos MA, et al. N Engl J Med 2016; in press). In a pre-specified interim analysis, the DRd combination demonstrated significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) in addition to deep and durable responses compared with the Rd arm. We performed subgroup analyses to further examine these efficacy data according to prior treatment exposure. Methods: Pts who received ≥1 prior line of therapy were randomized (1:1) to Rd (lenalidomide: 25 mg PO on Days 1-21 of each 28-day cycle; dexamethasone: 40 mg PO weekly) with or without daratumumab (16 mg/kg IV qw for 8 weeks, q2w for 16 weeks, then q4w until progression). The primary endpoint was PFS. Pts who were refractory to lenalidomide were not eligible. All analyses were performed in pts who received 1 to 3 prior lines of therapy. Results: Median follow-up was 13.5 months. Pts who were lenalidomide-naive prior to the start of study treatment (DRd, n=226; Rd, n=219) demonstrated significantly longer PFS with DRd vs Rd (median: not reached [NR] vs 18.4 months; HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.25-0.52; P<0.0001), with estimated 12-month PFS rates of 83.0% vs 59.9%, respectively. ORR was significantly higher with DRd vs Rd (96% vs 79%), with ≥VGPR rates of 76% vs 47% and ≥CR rates of 44% vs 21%, respectively (P<0.0001 for all). In the lenalidomide-exposed subgroup (DRd, n=46; Rd, n=45), median PFS was NR in both treatment groups (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.22-1.12; P=0.0826); estimated 12-month PFS rates were 84.1% vs 63.1%, respectively. ORR was higher with DRd vs Rd but did not reach statistical significance (87% vs 71%; P=0.0729); however, rates of ≥VGPR (78% vs 38%; P=0.0001) and ≥CR (44% vs 12%; P=0.0011) were significantly improved with DRd vs Rd, respectively. For bortezomib-naive pts (DRd, n=44; Rd, n=45), PFS was significantly longer with DRd vs Rd (median: NR vs 15.8 months; HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.13-0.86; P=0.0170), with estimated 12-month PFS rates of 85.4% vs 69.2%, respectively. ORR was significantly higher with DRd vs Rd (98% vs 82%; P=0.0158), with trends toward increased rates of ≥VGPR (74% vs 55%; P=0.0544) and ≥CR (42% vs 23%; P=0.0576). In the bortezomib-exposed pts (DRd, n=228; Rd, n=219), median PFS was NR in DRd vs 18.4 months in Rd (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.24-0.50 P<0.0001); estimated 12-month PFS rates were 82.8% vs 58.7%, respectively. Significant differences in ORR (93% vs 77%), rate of ≥VGPR (77% vs 43%) and rate of ≥CR (44% vs 19%) were observed with DRd vs Rd, respectively (P<0.0001 for all). Among bortezomib-refractory patients (DRd, n=54; Rd, n=49), the PFS benefit of DRd compared with Rd was maintained (median: NR vs 10.3 mo, respectively; HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.25-0.85; P=0.0117; Figure). The estimated 12-month PFS rates were 70.8% vs 44.4%, respectively. Similar to bortezomib-exposed pts, ORR (92% vs 68%; P=0.0024), rate of ≥VGPR (75% vs 36%; P=0.0001), and rate of ≥CR (46% vs 13%; P=0.0003) were all significantly higher with DRd vs Rd for bortezomib-refractory pts. Updated data will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions: Among pts who received 1 to 3 prior lines of therapy, significantly longer PFS and higher ORR were observed with DRd vs Rd among pts who previously received bortezomib or were refractory to bortezomib or were lenalidomide-naive. Higher rates of deeper responses were observed in pts who previously received lenalidomide or bortezomib. Follow-up is ongoing to assess PFS in pts who received 1 to 3 prior lines of therapy and previously received lenalidomide. These results further strengthen the significant benefit of combining daratumumab with Rd for RRMM. Figure Progression-free Survival in Bortezomib-refractory Patients who Received 1 to 3 Prior Lines of Therapy Figure. Progression-free Survival in Bortezomib-refractory Patients who Received 1 to 3 Prior Lines of Therapy Disclosures Moreau: Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Kaufman:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Sutherland:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Lalancette:Celgene: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria. Iida:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding. Prince:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Cochrane:BMS: Other: Received sponsorship to attend international meetings; Novartis: Other: Received sponsorship to attend international meetings; Celgene: Other: Received sponsorship to attend international meetings; Takeda: Other: Received sponsorship to attend international meetings. Khokhar:Janssen: Employment. Guckert:Johnson & Johnson: Equity Ownership; Janssen: Employment. Qin:Janssen: Employment. Oriol:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Pomalidomide, dexamethasone, and daratumumab in relapsed refractory multiple myeloma after lenalidomide treatment

Leukemia ◽

10.1038/s41375-020-0813-1 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 34 (12) ◽

pp. 3286-3297 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

David S. Siegel ◽

Gary J. Schiller ◽

Christy Samaras ◽

Michael Sebag ◽

Jesus Berdeja ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Free Survival ◽

Safety And Efficacy ◽

Refractory Multiple Myeloma ◽

Secondary Endpoints ◽

Pretreated Patients ◽

Grade 3 ◽

Treatment Emergent Adverse Event

AbstractPatients with multiple myeloma who have relapsed after or become refractory to lenalidomide in early treatment lines represent a clinically important population in need of effective therapies. The safety and efficacy of pomalidomide, low-dose dexamethasone, and daratumumab was evaluated in lenalidomide-pretreated patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) after one to two prior treatment lines in the phase 2 MM-014 study. Patients received pomalidomide 4 mg daily from days 1–21 and dexamethasone 40 mg weekly (28-day cycles). Daratumumab 16 mg/kg was administered per label. Primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR); secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. Per protocol, all patients (N = 112) had received lenalidomide in their most recent prior regimen (75.0% lenalidomide refractory). ORR was 77.7% (76.2% in lenalidomide-refractory patients); median follow-up was 17.2 months. Median PFS was not reached (1-year PFS rate 75.1%). The most common hematologic grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse event was neutropenia (62.5%). Grade 3/4 infections were reported in 31.3% of patients, including 13.4% with grade 3/4 pneumonia. These results demonstrate the safety and efficacy of pomalidomide-based therapy as early as second line in patients with RRMM, even immediately after lenalidomide failure, indicating that switching from the immunomodulatory agent class is not necessary.

Download Full-text

Ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone in routine clinical practice: effectiveness in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma

Future Oncology ◽

10.2217/fon-2020-1225 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Roman Hájek ◽

Jiří Minařík ◽

Jan Straub ◽

Luděk Pour ◽

Alexandra Jungova ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Clinical Practice ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Routine Clinical Practice ◽

Clinical Trial Registration ◽

Free Survival ◽

Refractory Multiple Myeloma ◽

Level Data ◽

Dose Reductions

Aim: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (IRd) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma in routine clinical practice. Patients & methods: Patient-level data from the global, observational INSIGHT MM and the Czech Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies were integrated and analyzed. Results: At data cut-off, 263 patients from 13 countries were included. Median time from diagnosis to start of IRd was 35.8 months; median duration of follow-up was 14.8 months. Overall response rate was 73%, median progression-free survival, 21.2 months and time-to-next therapy, 33.0 months. Ixazomib/lenalidomide dose reductions were required in 17%/36% of patients; 32%/30% of patients discontinued ixazomib/lenalidomide due to adverse events. Conclusion: The effectiveness and safety of IRd in routine clinical practice are comparable to those reported in TOURMALINE-MM1. Clinical trial registration: NCT02761187 (ClinicalTrials.gov)

Download Full-text

Continuous Infusion Cyclophosphamide as Salvage Therapy for Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v114.22.4942.4942 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 114 (22) ◽

pp. 4942-4942

Author(s):

Binu Malhotra ◽

David L Porter ◽

Edward A. Stadtmauer ◽

Stephen J. Schuster ◽

Dan T. Vogl

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Continuous Infusion ◽

Median Duration ◽

Progressive Disease ◽

Conflicts Of Interest ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Cell Transplant ◽

Free Survival ◽

Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Abstract Abstract 4942 Background Patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM) are resistant to most therapies. In this study, we assess the efficacy and tolerability of continuous infusion (CI) cyclophosphamide in a group of heavily pre-treated patients with relapsed/refractory MM. Methods Charts of all patients treated with CI cyclophosphamide for relapsed/refractory MM between 01/2003 and 12/2008, at the Hospital of University of Pennsylvania, were identified and reviewed. Patients who had received at least one cycle of CI cyclophosphamide were included for the analysis. The dose of cyclophosphamide ranged between 200-300 mg/m2/day CI for 4 days. Duration of each cycle was planned at 28 days. Response was assessed using the international uniform response criteria for MM. Toxicity was assessed using the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria, version 4. Results We treated 24 patients with CI cyclophosphamide. The median age was 60.5 years (range 33-75 years) and 66% were male. Patients had received a median of 5 prior regimens (range 2.0 to 11.0) and the median duration of time from diagnosis to treatment with CI cyclophosphamide was 5 yrs (range 0.38-22 yrs). Cyclophosphamide was started in 19 patients for management of progressive disease, and in 5 patients for lack of response or adverse effects from prior therapies. Prior therapies included: bortezomib (in all patients), lenalidomide (in 96% of patients) and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT - once in 46%, and twice in 29%) among others. The median number of cyclophosphamide cycles administered until the time of last follow up was 4.0 (range 1.0-43.0). Treatment was ongoing in 4 patients at the time of last follow up, and two patients with stable disease were being observed without therapy. Median overall survival for all patients was 22.3 months (95% CI 10.04-34.53) and median progression free survival (PFS) was 7.4 months (95%CI 4.12-10.69). Partial response was noted in 4 patients, who had a median duration of response of 4.2 months and median time to best response of 0.8 month. Disease was stabilized in 14 additional patients. Disease progressed despite therapy in 6 patients, and in 4 of those progressive disease was evident from cycle one. Cytopenias were noted in 8 patients, with 4 related to the treatment with cyclophosphamide, but in only one case did this lead to discontinuation of therapy. Conclusion In our experience with 24 patients, monthly cycles of continuous infusion cyclophosphamide was a safe and effective method of treating relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma resulting in a prolonged progression free survival in very heavily pretreated patients. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Download Full-text

Safety and efficacy of single-agent lenalidomide in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2008-12-196238 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 114 (4) ◽

pp. 772-778 ◽

Cited By ~ 110

Author(s):

Paul Richardson ◽

Sundar Jagannath ◽

Mohamad Hussein ◽

James Berenson ◽

Seema Singhal ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Single Agent ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Prior Treatment ◽

Once Daily ◽

Free Survival ◽

Refractory Multiple Myeloma ◽

Treatment Regimens ◽

Common Grade ◽

Grade 3

Abstract Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is effective for the treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM); however, toxicities from dexamethasone can be dose limiting. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide monotherapy in patients with relapsed and refractory MM. Patients (N = 222) received lenalidomide 30 mg/day once daily (days 1-21 every 28 days) until disease progression or intolerance. Response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), time to progression (TTP), and safety were assessed. Overall, 67% of patients had received 3 or more prior treatment regimens. Partial response or better was reported in 26% of patients, with minimal response 18%. There was no difference between patients who had received 2 or fewer versus 3 or more prior treatment regimens (45% vs 44%, respectively). Median values for TTP, PFS, and OS were 5.2, 4.9, and 23.2 months, respectively. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were neutropenia (60%), thrombocytopenia (39%), and anemia (20%), which proved manageable with dose reduction. Grade 3 or 4 febrile neutropenia occurred in 4% of patients. Lenalidomide monotherapy is active in relapsed and refractory MM with acceptable toxicities. These data support treatment with single-agent lenalidomide, as well as its use in steroid-sparing combination approaches. The study is registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00065351.

Download Full-text

Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone is more effective than dexamethasone alone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma regardless of prior thalidomide exposure

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2008-02-141614 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 112 (12) ◽

pp. 4445-4451 ◽

Cited By ~ 127

Author(s):

Michael Wang ◽

Meletios A. Dimopoulos ◽

Christine Chen ◽

M. Teresa Cibeira ◽

Michel Attal ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Overall Response Rate ◽

Response Rate ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Time To Progression ◽

Free Survival ◽

Refractory Multiple Myeloma ◽

Previously Treated ◽

Survival Studies

AbstractThis analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide + dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM) previously treated with thalidomide. Of 704 patients, 39% were thalidomide exposed. Thalidomide-exposed patients had more prior lines of therapy and longer duration of myeloma than thalidomide-naive patients. Lenalidomide + dexamethasone led to higher overall response rate (ORR), longer time to progression (TTP), and progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo + dexamethasone despite prior thalidomide exposure. Among lenalidomide + dexamethasone-treated patients, ORR was higher in thalidomide-naive versus thalidomide-exposed patients (P = .04), with longer median TTP (P = .04) and PFS (P = .02). Likewise for dexamethasone alone-treated patients (P = .03 for ORR, P = .03 for TTP, P = .06 for PFS). Prior thalidomide did not affect survival in lenalidomide + dexamethasone-treated patients (36.1 vs 33.3 months, P > .05). Thalidomide-naive and thalidomide-exposed patients had similar toxicities. Lenalidomide + dexamethasone resulted in higher rates of venous thromboembolism, myelosuppression, and infections versus placebo + dexamethasone, independent of prior thalidomide exposure. Lenalido-mide + dexamethasone was superior to placebo + dexamethasone, independent of prior thalidomide exposure. Although prior thalidomide may have contributed to inferior TTP and PFS compared with thalidomide-naive patients, these parameters remained superior compared with placebo + dexamethasone; similar benefits compared with placebo + dexamethasone were not evident for thalidomide-exposed patients in terms of overall survival. Studies were registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov under NCT00056160 and NCT00424047.

Download Full-text

Melflufen and Dexamethasone in Heavily Pretreated Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.20.02259 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. JCO.20.02259

Author(s):

Paul G. Richardson ◽

Albert Oriol ◽

Alessandra Larocca ◽

Joan Bladé ◽

Michele Cavo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Overall Survival ◽

Overall Response Rate ◽

Response Rate ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Free Survival ◽

Duration Of Response ◽

Heavily Pretreated ◽

Grade 3

PURPOSE Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen) is a first-in-class peptide-drug conjugate that targets aminopeptidases and rapidly and selectively releases alkylating agents into tumor cells. The phase II HORIZON trial evaluated the efficacy of melflufen plus dexamethasone in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), a population with an important unmet medical need. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with RRMM refractory to pomalidomide and/or an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody received melflufen 40 mg intravenously on day 1 of each 28-day cycle plus once weekly oral dexamethasone at a dose of 40 mg (20 mg in patients older than 75 years). The primary end point was overall response rate (partial response or better) assessed by the investigator and confirmed by independent review. Secondary end points included duration of response, progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. The primary analysis is complete with long-term follow-up ongoing. RESULTS Of 157 patients (median age 65 years; median five prior lines of therapy) enrolled and treated, 119 patients (76%) had triple-class–refractory disease, 55 (35%) had extramedullary disease, and 92 (59%) were refractory to previous alkylator therapy. The overall response rate was 29% in the all-treated population, with 26% in the triple-class–refractory population. In the all-treated population, median duration of response was 5.5 months, median progression-free survival was 4.2 months, and median overall survival was 11.6 months at a median follow-up of 14 months. Grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 96% of patients, most commonly neutropenia (79%), thrombocytopenia (76%), and anemia (43%). Pneumonia (10%) was the most common grade 3/4 nonhematologic event. Thrombocytopenia and bleeding (both grade 3/4 but fully reversible) occurred concomitantly in four patients. GI events, reported in 97 patients (62%), were predominantly grade 1/2 (93%); none were grade 4. CONCLUSION Melflufen plus dexamethasone showed clinically meaningful efficacy and a manageable safety profile in patients with heavily pretreated RRMM, including those with triple-class–refractory and extramedullary disease.

Download Full-text

Daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: extended follow-up of POLLUX, a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study

Leukemia ◽

10.1038/s41375-020-0711-6 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 34 (7) ◽

pp. 1875-1884 ◽

Cited By ~ 20

Author(s):

Nizar J. Bahlis ◽

Meletios A. Dimopoulos ◽

Darrell J. White ◽

Lotfi Benboubker ◽

Gordon Cook ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Residual Disease ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Complete Response ◽

Open Label ◽

Refractory Multiple Myeloma ◽

Open Label Phase ◽

Intent To Treat ◽

Line Of Therapy

Abstract In POLLUX, daratumumab (D) plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone (Rd) reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 63% and increased the overall response rate (ORR) versus Rd in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Updated efficacy and safety after >3 years of follow-up are presented. Patients (N = 569) with ≥1 prior line received Rd (lenalidomide, 25 mg, on Days 1–21 of each 28-day cycle; dexamethasone, 40 mg, weekly) ± daratumumab at the approved dosing schedule. Minimal residual disease (MRD) was assessed by next-generation sequencing. After 44.3 months median follow-up, D-Rd prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) in the intent-to-treat population (median 44.5 vs 17.5 months; HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.35–0.55; P < 0.0001) and in patient subgroups. D-Rd demonstrated higher ORR (92.9 vs 76.4%; P < 0.0001) and deeper responses, including complete response or better (56.6 vs 23.2%; P < 0.0001) and MRD negativity (10–5; 30.4 vs 5.3%; P < 0.0001). Median time to next therapy was prolonged with D-Rd (50.6 vs 23.1 months; HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.31–0.50; P < 0.0001). Median PFS on subsequent line of therapy (PFS2) was not reached with D-Rd versus 31.7 months with Rd (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.42–0.68; P < 0.0001). No new safety concerns were reported. These data support using D-Rd in patients with RRMM after first relapse.

Download Full-text