Integrated analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating bortezomib + lenalidomide + dexamethasone or bortezomib + thalidomide + dexamethasone induction in transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

ObjectiveProviding the most efficacious frontline treatment for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) is critical for patient outcomes. No direct comparisons have been made between bortezomib + lenalidomide + dexamethasone (VRD) and bortezomib + thalidomide + dexamethasone (VTD) induction regimens...

وصف كامل

التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
الحاوية / القاعدة:Frontiers in Oncology
المؤلفون الرئيسيون: Laura Rosiñol, Benjamin Hebraud, Albert Oriol, Anne-Laurène Colin, Rafael Ríos Tamayo, Cyrille Hulin, María Jesús Blanchard, Denis Caillot, Anna Sureda, Miguel Teodoro Hernández, Bertrand Arnulf, Maria-Victoria Mateos, Margaret Macro, Jesús San-Miguel, Karim Belhadj, Juan José Lahuerta, M. Brigid Garelik, Joan Bladé, Philippe Moreau
التنسيق: مقال
اللغة:الإنجليزية
منشور في: Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-11-01
الموضوعات:
الوصول للمادة أونلاين:https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fonc.2023.1197340/full
الوصف
الملخص:ObjectiveProviding the most efficacious frontline treatment for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) is critical for patient outcomes. No direct comparisons have been made between bortezomib + lenalidomide + dexamethasone (VRD) and bortezomib + thalidomide + dexamethasone (VTD) induction regimens in transplant-eligible NDMM.MethodsAn integrated analysis was performed using patient data from four trials meeting prespecified eligibility criteria: two using VRD (PETHEMA GEM2012 and IFM 2009) and two using VTD (PETHEMA GEM2005 and IFM 2013-04).ResultsThe primary endpoint was met, with VRD demonstrating a noninferior rate of at least very good partial response (≥ VGPR) after induction vs VTD. GEM comparison demonstrated improvement in the ≥ VGPR rate after induction for VRD vs VTD (66.3% vs 51.2%; P = .00281) that increased after transplant (74.4% vs 53.5%). Undetectable minimal residual disease rates post induction (46.7% vs 34.9%) and post transplant (62.4% vs 47.3%) support the benefit of VRD vs VTD. Treatment-emergent adverse events leading to study and/or treatment discontinuation were less frequent with VRD (3%, GEM2012; 6%, IFM 2009) vs VTD (11%, IFM 2013-04).ConclusionThese results supported the benefit of VRD over VTD for induction in transplant-eligible patients with NDMM. The trials included are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01916252, NCT01191060, NCT00461747, and NCT01971658).
تدمد:2234-943X