MAIA frailty subgroup analysis: long-term follow-up with daratumumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed myeloma

IF 8.8 1区 医学 Q1 HEMATOLOGY
Thierry Facon, Gordon Cook, Saad Z. Usmani, Cyrille Hulin, Shaji Kumar, Cyrille Touzeau, Nizar J. Bahlis, Supratik Basu, Hartmut Goldschmidt, Hang Quach, Mohamad Mohty, Christopher P. Venner, Katja Weisel, Noopur Raje, Salomon Manier, Mai Ngo, Marjohn Armoon, Kasey Bolyard, Fredrik Borgsten, Robin Carson, Sonja Zweegman
{"title":"MAIA frailty subgroup analysis: long-term follow-up with daratumumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed myeloma","authors":"Thierry Facon, Gordon Cook, Saad Z. Usmani, Cyrille Hulin, Shaji Kumar, Cyrille Touzeau, Nizar J. Bahlis, Supratik Basu, Hartmut Goldschmidt, Hang Quach, Mohamad Mohty, Christopher P. Venner, Katja Weisel, Noopur Raje, Salomon Manier, Mai Ngo, Marjohn Armoon, Kasey Bolyard, Fredrik Borgsten, Robin Carson, Sonja Zweegman","doi":"10.1038/s41375-026-03128-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In MAIA (Daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma), daratumumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone (D-Rd) improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) versus Rd in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Here, we report an updated subgroup analysis by frailty status. We retrospectively performed frailty assessments using age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score; patients were classified as fit, intermediate, non-frail (fit + intermediate), or frail. After a 64.5-month median follow-up, OS benefit of D-Rd versus Rd was maintained in the non-frail subgroup (median, not reached [NR] vs 69.8 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37–0.76; P = 0.0004); the OS HR point estimate favored D-Rd versus Rd in the frail subgroup (NR vs 50.4 months; HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.58–1.06; P = 0.1128). Improved PFS and rates of complete response or better and minimal residual disease negativity (10–5) were observed with D-Rd versus Rd across frailty subgroups. Duration of therapy was consistently longer with D-Rd versus Rd, highlighting the improved disease control and long-term tolerability of daratumumab in frail patients. These long-term data, although limited by the retrospective assessment of frailty using baseline characteristics, continue to support the therapeutic benefit of D-Rd in terms of improved PFS and higher rates of deep responses in transplant-ineligible NDMM, regardless of frailty status.","PeriodicalId":18109,"journal":{"name":"Leukemia","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Leukemia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41375-026-03128-5","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In MAIA (Daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma), daratumumab plus lenalidomide/dexamethasone (D-Rd) improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) versus Rd in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Here, we report an updated subgroup analysis by frailty status. We retrospectively performed frailty assessments using age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score; patients were classified as fit, intermediate, non-frail (fit + intermediate), or frail. After a 64.5-month median follow-up, OS benefit of D-Rd versus Rd was maintained in the non-frail subgroup (median, not reached [NR] vs 69.8 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37–0.76; P = 0.0004); the OS HR point estimate favored D-Rd versus Rd in the frail subgroup (NR vs 50.4 months; HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.58–1.06; P = 0.1128). Improved PFS and rates of complete response or better and minimal residual disease negativity (10–5) were observed with D-Rd versus Rd across frailty subgroups. Duration of therapy was consistently longer with D-Rd versus Rd, highlighting the improved disease control and long-term tolerability of daratumumab in frail patients. These long-term data, although limited by the retrospective assessment of frailty using baseline characteristics, continue to support the therapeutic benefit of D-Rd in terms of improved PFS and higher rates of deep responses in transplant-ineligible NDMM, regardless of frailty status.

Abstract Image

MAIA衰弱亚组分析:达拉单抗联合来那度胺/地塞米松治疗不适合移植的新诊断骨髓瘤的长期随访
在MAIA(达拉单抗、来那度胺和地塞米松与来那度胺和地塞米松单独治疗新诊断的多发性骨髓瘤)中,达拉单抗加来那度胺/地塞米松(D-Rd)改善了移植不符合条件的新诊断多发性骨髓瘤(NDMM)的无进展生存期(PFS)和总生存期(OS)。在这里,我们报告了一个更新的亚组衰弱状态分析。我们回顾性地使用年龄、Charlson合并症指数和基线东部肿瘤合作组表现状态评分进行衰弱评估;患者被分为健康、中等、非虚弱(健康+中等)和虚弱。中位随访64.5个月后,D-Rd与Rd在非虚弱亚组的OS获益保持不变(中位未达到[NR] vs 69.8个月;风险比[HR], 0.53; 95%可信区间[CI], 0.37-0.76; P = 0.0004);虚弱亚组的OS HR点估计更倾向于D-Rd和Rd (NR vs 50.4个月;HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.58-1.06; P = 0.1128)。在虚弱亚组中,与Rd相比,D-Rd改善了PFS和完全缓解率或更好和最小残留疾病阴性率(10-5)。与Rd相比,D-Rd的治疗持续时间更长,突出了疾病控制的改善和达拉单抗在虚弱患者中的长期耐受性。这些长期数据,尽管受到使用基线特征对衰弱进行回顾性评估的限制,继续支持D-Rd在改善PFS和更高的深度应答率方面的治疗益处,无论移植不符合NDMM的衰弱状态如何。
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
Leukemia
Leukemia 医学-血液学
CiteScore
18.10
自引率
3.50%
发文量
270
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Title: Leukemia Journal Overview: Publishes high-quality, peer-reviewed research Covers all aspects of research and treatment of leukemia and allied diseases Includes studies of normal hemopoiesis due to comparative relevance Topics of Interest: Oncogenes Growth factors Stem cells Leukemia genomics Cell cycle Signal transduction Molecular targets for therapy And more Content Types: Original research articles Reviews Letters Correspondence Comments elaborating on significant advances and covering topical issues
×
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
小红书