Real-World Comparison of Carfilzomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone Versus Ixazomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone in Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma: KMM2004 Study.

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q2 HEMATOLOGY
Do Young Kim, Chang-Ki Min, Hyeon-Seok Eom, Jongheon Jung, Kihyun Kim, Jae Hoon Lee, Kwai Han Yoo, Ji Yun Lee, Ja Min Byun, Sung-Hyun Kim, Ji Hyun Lee, Hee Jeong Cho, Sang Min Lee, Young Rok Do, Sungwoo Park, Junglim Lee, Seung-Shin Lee, Hye Jin Kang, Young Hoon Park, Sung-Nam Lim, Ho-Jin Shin
{"title":"Real-World Comparison of Carfilzomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone Versus Ixazomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone in Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma: KMM2004 Study.","authors":"Do Young Kim, Chang-Ki Min, Hyeon-Seok Eom, Jongheon Jung, Kihyun Kim, Jae Hoon Lee, Kwai Han Yoo, Ji Yun Lee, Ja Min Byun, Sung-Hyun Kim, Ji Hyun Lee, Hee Jeong Cho, Sang Min Lee, Young Rok Do, Sungwoo Park, Junglim Lee, Seung-Shin Lee, Hye Jin Kang, Young Hoon Park, Sung-Nam Lim, Ho-Jin Shin","doi":"10.1016/j.clml.2025.06.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Lenalidomide-based triplet regimens, specifically carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) and ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (IRd), are recognized as effective treatments for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Since 2020, South Korea's National Health Insurance Service has covered these combinations, prompting a need for real-world comparisons of their efficacy and safety.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis of 182 RRMM patients treated with KRd (112) or IRd (70) at 17 South Korean centers from May 2020 to April 2021 was conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Better outcomes for the KRd were expected according to previous randomized controlled trials (RCT). However, there was no significant difference in the overall response rate between the two groups (89.1 vs. 87.0%, P = .67). Responses above very good partial response tended to be higher in the KRd (70.9 vs. 58.0%, P = .075), although not statistically significant. In terms of treatment maintenance, the two groups had a 9.3-month difference in progression-free survival, but it was not statistically significant (19.1 vs. 28.4 months, P = .08). Overall survival was longer for IRd (31.6 months vs. not achieved, P = .02). Analysis revealed that the proper toxicity control and dose modification have influenced these results. Subgroup analysis found no difference in treatment outcome between the two treatments in high-risk patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Comparing the two treatments in the real-world revealed inconsistent outcomes from the predictions based on RCTs. The KRd showed an advantage in the depth of response, while the IRd showed an advantage in the duration of the response. The findings will be helpful in choosing the best strategies of treatment for patients with RRMM.</p>","PeriodicalId":10348,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2025.06.006","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Lenalidomide-based triplet regimens, specifically carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) and ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (IRd), are recognized as effective treatments for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Since 2020, South Korea's National Health Insurance Service has covered these combinations, prompting a need for real-world comparisons of their efficacy and safety.

Methods: A retrospective analysis of 182 RRMM patients treated with KRd (112) or IRd (70) at 17 South Korean centers from May 2020 to April 2021 was conducted.

Results: Better outcomes for the KRd were expected according to previous randomized controlled trials (RCT). However, there was no significant difference in the overall response rate between the two groups (89.1 vs. 87.0%, P = .67). Responses above very good partial response tended to be higher in the KRd (70.9 vs. 58.0%, P = .075), although not statistically significant. In terms of treatment maintenance, the two groups had a 9.3-month difference in progression-free survival, but it was not statistically significant (19.1 vs. 28.4 months, P = .08). Overall survival was longer for IRd (31.6 months vs. not achieved, P = .02). Analysis revealed that the proper toxicity control and dose modification have influenced these results. Subgroup analysis found no difference in treatment outcome between the two treatments in high-risk patients.

Conclusions: Comparing the two treatments in the real-world revealed inconsistent outcomes from the predictions based on RCTs. The KRd showed an advantage in the depth of response, while the IRd showed an advantage in the duration of the response. The findings will be helpful in choosing the best strategies of treatment for patients with RRMM.

卡非佐米、来那度胺和地塞米松与伊沙唑米、来那度胺和地塞米松在复发/难治性多发性骨髓瘤患者中的实际比较:KMM2004研究
背景:以来那度胺为基础的三联方案,特别是卡非佐米、来那度胺和地塞米松(KRd)以及伊唑唑米、来那度胺和地塞米松(IRd),被认为是复发/难治性多发性骨髓瘤(RRMM)的有效治疗方法。自2020年以来,韩国国民健康保险服务已经覆盖了这些组合,这促使人们需要对它们的疗效和安全性进行现实世界的比较。方法:对2020年5月至2021年4月在韩国17个中心接受KRd(112)或IRd(70)治疗的182例RRMM患者进行回顾性分析。结果:根据之前的随机对照试验(RCT), KRd的预后预期会更好。但两组总有效率无显著差异(89.1 vs 87.0%, P = 0.67)。非常好的部分反应以上的反应在KRd中往往更高(70.9比58.0%,P = 0.075),尽管没有统计学意义。在治疗维持方面,两组无进展生存期相差9.3个月,但差异无统计学意义(19.1个月vs 28.4个月,P = 0.08)。IRd的总生存期更长(31.6个月vs.未达到,P = 0.02)。分析表明,适当的毒性控制和剂量调整对这些结果有影响。亚组分析发现两种治疗方法对高危患者的治疗结果无差异。结论:在现实世界中比较两种治疗发现基于随机对照试验的预测结果不一致。KRd在反应深度上表现出优势,而IRd在反应持续时间上表现出优势。研究结果将有助于RRMM患者选择最佳治疗策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
3.70%
发文量
1606
审稿时长
26 days
期刊介绍: Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia is a peer-reviewed monthly journal that publishes original articles describing various aspects of clinical and translational research of lymphoma, myeloma and leukemia. Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia is devoted to articles on detection, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of lymphoma, myeloma, leukemia and related disorders including macroglobulinemia, amyloidosis, and plasma-cell dyscrasias. The main emphasis is on recent scientific developments in all areas related to lymphoma, myeloma and leukemia. Specific areas of interest include clinical research and mechanistic approaches; drug sensitivity and resistance; gene and antisense therapy; pathology, markers, and prognostic indicators; chemoprevention strategies; multimodality therapy; and integration of various approaches.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信