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

Objective: Providing 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 regime...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Rosiñol, Laura|||0000-0002-2534-9239, Hebraud, Benjamin, Oriol, Albert|||0000-0001-6804-2221, Colin, Anne-Laurène, Ríos-Tamayo, Rafael|||0000-0001-8193-1402, Hulin, Cyrille|||0000-0002-3749-5161, Blanchard, María Jesús, Caillot, Denis, Sureda, Anna|||0000-0002-1238-6970, Hernández, Miguel Teodoro|||0000-0002-6576-7881, Arnulf, Bertrand, Mateos, M. V.|||0000-0003-2390-1218, Macro, Margaret, San Miguel, Jesús|||0000-0002-9183-4857, Belhadj, Karim, Lahuerta, J. J.|||0000-0002-3393-9570, Garelik, M.Brigid, Bladé Creixenti, Juan|||0000-0002-4563-3405, Moreau, Philippe|||0000-0003-1780-8746
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Fecha de publicación:2023
País:España
Institución:Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
Repositorio:Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB
Idioma:inglés
OAI Identifier:oai:ddd.uab.cat:289759
Acceso en línea:https://ddd.uab.cat/record/289759
https://dx.doi.org/urn:doi:10.3389/fonc.2023.1197340
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:Multiple myeloma
Ortezomib
Lenalidomide
Dexamethasone
Thalidomide
Descripción
Sumario:Objective: Providing 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. Methods: An 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). Results: The 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). Conclusion: These 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).

Similares en LA Referencia