Efstathios Kastritis , Meral Beksac , Sorina Nicoleta Badelita , Eirini Katodritou , Jelena Bila , Emmanouil Spanoudakis , Guldane Cengiz Seval , Zorica Cvetkovic , Olivera Markovic , Selami Koçak Toprak , Dimitra Dalampira , Daniel Coriu , Zoi Bezirgiannidou , Mario Pirsic , Toni Valkovic , Iulia Ursuleac , Aleksandra Sretenovic , Angeliki Sevastoudi , Josip Batinic , Sinziana Barbu , Meletios A. Dimopoulos
{"title":"新诊断多发性骨髓瘤中的 VCd 与 VRd:巴尔干骨髓瘤研究小组(BMSG)的真实世界匹配分析。","authors":"Efstathios Kastritis , Meral Beksac , Sorina Nicoleta Badelita , Eirini Katodritou , Jelena Bila , Emmanouil Spanoudakis , Guldane Cengiz Seval , Zorica Cvetkovic , Olivera Markovic , Selami Koçak Toprak , Dimitra Dalampira , Daniel Coriu , Zoi Bezirgiannidou , Mario Pirsic , Toni Valkovic , Iulia Ursuleac , Aleksandra Sretenovic , Angeliki Sevastoudi , Josip Batinic , Sinziana Barbu , Meletios A. Dimopoulos","doi":"10.1016/j.clml.2024.08.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Bortezomib, dexamethasone and cyclophosphamide (VCd) remains a popular regimen, due to its activity and low toxicity, while bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd) is widely used in US and Europe; both are combined with anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies but VCd and VRd have not been compared directly in adequately powered prospective trials.</div></div><div><h3>Aim</h3><div>We compared the outcomes of 1216 patients treated with VCd (<em>N</em> = 690) or VRd (<em>N</em> = 526) in a real-world setting.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Patients treated with VCd had more often severe renal dysfunction, ISS-3 disease, hypercalcemia, elevated LDH, anemia, thrombocytopenia, poor performance while VRd-treated were older and received less often autologous transplant but more frequently maintenance but the duration of induction was similar. VRd was associated with substantially higher overall response and CR/VGPR rates to induction(<em>P</em> < .001) and improved PFS and OS in univariate analysis, especially among patients with standard risk disease, without renal dysfunction and in the elderly; however, in multivariate analysis there was no significant difference in either PFS or OS. In patients strictly matched 1:1 for major prognostic variables (188 in each group, total <em>N</em> = 376), the superiority of VRd in terms of responses rates and depth of response was confirmed, but without significant PFS or OS difference.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>VRd is a more active induction regimen than VCd, although use of maintenance with lenalidomide may dilute the PFS or OS benefit. VCd induction remains an option in special circumstances. With the implementation of monoclonal antibodies, VCd backbone can be considered for patients without access to or who do not tolerate VRd.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10348,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia","volume":"25 2","pages":"Pages e71-e81"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"VCd versus VRd in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: Matched Real-World Analysis from the Balkan Myeloma Study Group (BMSG)\",\"authors\":\"Efstathios Kastritis , Meral Beksac , Sorina Nicoleta Badelita , Eirini Katodritou , Jelena Bila , Emmanouil Spanoudakis , Guldane Cengiz Seval , Zorica Cvetkovic , Olivera Markovic , Selami Koçak Toprak , Dimitra Dalampira , Daniel Coriu , Zoi Bezirgiannidou , Mario Pirsic , Toni Valkovic , Iulia Ursuleac , Aleksandra Sretenovic , Angeliki Sevastoudi , Josip Batinic , Sinziana Barbu , Meletios A. Dimopoulos\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.clml.2024.08.007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Bortezomib, dexamethasone and cyclophosphamide (VCd) remains a popular regimen, due to its activity and low toxicity, while bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd) is widely used in US and Europe; both are combined with anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies but VCd and VRd have not been compared directly in adequately powered prospective trials.</div></div><div><h3>Aim</h3><div>We compared the outcomes of 1216 patients treated with VCd (<em>N</em> = 690) or VRd (<em>N</em> = 526) in a real-world setting.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Patients treated with VCd had more often severe renal dysfunction, ISS-3 disease, hypercalcemia, elevated LDH, anemia, thrombocytopenia, poor performance while VRd-treated were older and received less often autologous transplant but more frequently maintenance but the duration of induction was similar. VRd was associated with substantially higher overall response and CR/VGPR rates to induction(<em>P</em> < .001) and improved PFS and OS in univariate analysis, especially among patients with standard risk disease, without renal dysfunction and in the elderly; however, in multivariate analysis there was no significant difference in either PFS or OS. In patients strictly matched 1:1 for major prognostic variables (188 in each group, total <em>N</em> = 376), the superiority of VRd in terms of responses rates and depth of response was confirmed, but without significant PFS or OS difference.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>VRd is a more active induction regimen than VCd, although use of maintenance with lenalidomide may dilute the PFS or OS benefit. VCd induction remains an option in special circumstances. With the implementation of monoclonal antibodies, VCd backbone can be considered for patients without access to or who do not tolerate VRd.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10348,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia\",\"volume\":\"25 2\",\"pages\":\"Pages e71-e81\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"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://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2152265024003124\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma & Leukemia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2152265024003124","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
VCd versus VRd in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: Matched Real-World Analysis from the Balkan Myeloma Study Group (BMSG)
Background
Bortezomib, dexamethasone and cyclophosphamide (VCd) remains a popular regimen, due to its activity and low toxicity, while bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd) is widely used in US and Europe; both are combined with anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies but VCd and VRd have not been compared directly in adequately powered prospective trials.
Aim
We compared the outcomes of 1216 patients treated with VCd (N = 690) or VRd (N = 526) in a real-world setting.
Results
Patients treated with VCd had more often severe renal dysfunction, ISS-3 disease, hypercalcemia, elevated LDH, anemia, thrombocytopenia, poor performance while VRd-treated were older and received less often autologous transplant but more frequently maintenance but the duration of induction was similar. VRd was associated with substantially higher overall response and CR/VGPR rates to induction(P < .001) and improved PFS and OS in univariate analysis, especially among patients with standard risk disease, without renal dysfunction and in the elderly; however, in multivariate analysis there was no significant difference in either PFS or OS. In patients strictly matched 1:1 for major prognostic variables (188 in each group, total N = 376), the superiority of VRd in terms of responses rates and depth of response was confirmed, but without significant PFS or OS difference.
Conclusion
VRd is a more active induction regimen than VCd, although use of maintenance with lenalidomide may dilute the PFS or OS benefit. VCd induction remains an option in special circumstances. With the implementation of monoclonal antibodies, VCd backbone can be considered for patients without access to or who do not tolerate VRd.
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.