符合移植条件的多发性骨髓瘤患者接受前线达拉曲单抗、来那度胺和地塞米松（DRd）与硼替佐米、来那度胺和地塞米松（VRd）治疗后到下一次治疗或死亡的时间比较。

IF 2.9 2区医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY

Cancer Medicine Pub Date : 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1002/cam4.70308

Doris K. Hansen, Santosh Gautam, Marie-Hélène Lafeuille, Carmine Rossi, Bronwyn Moore, Anabelle Tardif-Samson, Philippe Thompson-Leduc, Alex Z. Fu, Annelore Cortoos, Shuchita Kaila, Rafael Fonseca

{"title":"符合移植条件的多发性骨髓瘤患者接受前线达拉曲单抗、来那度胺和地塞米松（DRd）与硼替佐米、来那度胺和地塞米松（VRd）治疗后到下一次治疗或死亡的时间比较。","authors":"Doris K. Hansen, Santosh Gautam, Marie-Hélène Lafeuille, Carmine Rossi, Bronwyn Moore, Anabelle Tardif-Samson, Philippe Thompson-Leduc, Alex Z. Fu, Annelore Cortoos, Shuchita Kaila, Rafael Fonseca","doi":"10.1002/cam4.70308","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (DRd) and bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) are the only preferred treatment regimens for patients with transplant-ineligible (TIE) newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). As there are no randomized head-to-head studies of DRd versus VRd, this analysis aimed to compare real-world time-to-next-treatment (TTNT) or death in this population.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Patients with NDMM who received front-line (FL) DRd or VRd were identified from the Acentrus database (January 1, 2018 to May 31, 2023). Those with a record of a stem cell transplant or aged < 65 years were excluded to limit analysis to the TIE population. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance baseline patient characteristics. A doubly robust Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare TTNT or death between cohorts.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 149 and 494 patients who initiated DRd and VRd, respectively, were identified. After weighting (weighted N<sub>DRd</sub> = 302, weighted N<sub>VRd</sub> = 341), cohorts had similar baseline characteristics. Of these, 98 (32.4%) DRd and 175 (51.2%) VRd patients either received a subsequent line of therapy or died, with a median TTNT or death of 37.8 months in the DRd cohort and 18.7 months in the VRd cohort (hazard ratio: 0.58, 95% confidence interval: 0.35, 0.81; <i>p</i> < 0.001).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Treatment of TIE NDMM patients with DRd led to a significantly longer TTNT or death compared to VRd, evidenced by a 42% risk reduction, supporting the effectiveness of DRd over VRd as FL treatment in this patient population.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":139,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Medicine","volume":"13 21","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11530241/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Time to Next Treatment or Death Between Front-Line Daratumumab, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone (DRd) Versus Bortezomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone (VRd) Among Transplant-Ineligible Patients With Multiple Myeloma\",\"authors\":\"Doris K. Hansen, Santosh Gautam, Marie-Hélène Lafeuille, Carmine Rossi, Bronwyn Moore, Anabelle Tardif-Samson, Philippe Thompson-Leduc, Alex Z. Fu, Annelore Cortoos, Shuchita Kaila, Rafael Fonseca\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/cam4.70308\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>Daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (DRd) and bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) are the only preferred treatment regimens for patients with transplant-ineligible (TIE) newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). As there are no randomized head-to-head studies of DRd versus VRd, this analysis aimed to compare real-world time-to-next-treatment (TTNT) or death in this population.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Patients with NDMM who received front-line (FL) DRd or VRd were identified from the Acentrus database (January 1, 2018 to May 31, 2023). Those with a record of a stem cell transplant or aged < 65 years were excluded to limit analysis to the TIE population. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance baseline patient characteristics. A doubly robust Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare TTNT or death between cohorts.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>A total of 149 and 494 patients who initiated DRd and VRd, respectively, were identified. After weighting (weighted N<sub>DRd</sub> = 302, weighted N<sub>VRd</sub> = 341), cohorts had similar baseline characteristics. Of these, 98 (32.4%) DRd and 175 (51.2%) VRd patients either received a subsequent line of therapy or died, with a median TTNT or death of 37.8 months in the DRd cohort and 18.7 months in the VRd cohort (hazard ratio: 0.58, 95% confidence interval: 0.35, 0.81; <i>p</i> < 0.001).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Treatment of TIE NDMM patients with DRd led to a significantly longer TTNT or death compared to VRd, evidenced by a 42% risk reduction, supporting the effectiveness of DRd over VRd as FL treatment in this patient population.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":139,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cancer Medicine\",\"volume\":\"13 21\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11530241/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cancer Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cam4.70308\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cam4.70308","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

导言：达拉单抗、来那度胺和地塞米松（DRd）以及硼替佐米、来那度胺和地塞米松（VRd）是不符合移植条件（TIE）的新诊断多发性骨髓瘤（NDMM）患者的唯一首选治疗方案。由于没有关于DRd与VRd的头对头随机研究，本分析旨在比较该人群的实际下一次治疗（TTNT）或死亡时间：从Acentrus数据库（2018年1月1日至2023年5月31日）中确定了接受一线（FL）DRd或VRd治疗的NDMM患者。有干细胞移植记录或年龄偏大的患者：共识别出 149 名和 494 名分别开始 DRd 和 VRd 的患者。经过加权（加权 NDRd = 302，加权 NVRd = 341）后，各组群的基线特征相似。其中，98 名（32.4%）DRd 患者和 175 名（51.2%）VRd 患者接受了后续治疗或死亡，DRd 队列的中位 TTNT 或死亡时间为 37.8 个月，VRd 队列的中位 TTNT 或死亡时间为 18.7 个月（危险比：0.58，95% 置信区间：0.35，0.81；P 结论：与 VRd 相比，DRd 治疗 TIE NDMM 患者的 TTNT 或死亡时间明显更长，风险降低了 42%，这支持了 DRd 作为 FL 治疗在该患者群体中比 VRd 更有效。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

Comparison of Time to Next Treatment or Death Between Front-Line Daratumumab, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone (DRd) Versus Bortezomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone (VRd) Among Transplant-Ineligible Patients With Multiple Myeloma

查看原文本刊更多论文

Introduction

Daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (DRd) and bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) are the only preferred treatment regimens for patients with transplant-ineligible (TIE) newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). As there are no randomized head-to-head studies of DRd versus VRd, this analysis aimed to compare real-world time-to-next-treatment (TTNT) or death in this population.

Methods

Patients with NDMM who received front-line (FL) DRd or VRd were identified from the Acentrus database (January 1, 2018 to May 31, 2023). Those with a record of a stem cell transplant or aged < 65 years were excluded to limit analysis to the TIE population. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance baseline patient characteristics. A doubly robust Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare TTNT or death between cohorts.

Results

A total of 149 and 494 patients who initiated DRd and VRd, respectively, were identified. After weighting (weighted N_DRd = 302, weighted N_VRd = 341), cohorts had similar baseline characteristics. Of these, 98 (32.4%) DRd and 175 (51.2%) VRd patients either received a subsequent line of therapy or died, with a median TTNT or death of 37.8 months in the DRd cohort and 18.7 months in the VRd cohort (hazard ratio: 0.58, 95% confidence interval: 0.35, 0.81; p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Treatment of TIE NDMM patients with DRd led to a significantly longer TTNT or death compared to VRd, evidenced by a 42% risk reduction, supporting the effectiveness of DRd over VRd as FL treatment in this patient population.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Cancer Medicine ONCOLOGY-

CiteScore

5.50

自引率

2.50%

发文量

907

审稿时长

19 weeks

期刊介绍： Cancer Medicine is a peer-reviewed, open access, interdisciplinary journal providing rapid publication of research from global biomedical researchers across the cancer sciences. The journal will consider submissions from all oncologic specialties, including, but not limited to, the following areas: Clinical Cancer Research Translational research ∙ clinical trials ∙ chemotherapy ∙ radiation therapy ∙ surgical therapy ∙ clinical observations ∙ clinical guidelines ∙ genetic consultation ∙ ethical considerations Cancer Biology: Molecular biology ∙ cellular biology ∙ molecular genetics ∙ genomics ∙ immunology ∙ epigenetics ∙ metabolic studies ∙ proteomics ∙ cytopathology ∙ carcinogenesis ∙ drug discovery and delivery. Cancer Prevention: Behavioral science ∙ psychosocial studies ∙ screening ∙ nutrition ∙ epidemiology and prevention ∙ community outreach. Bioinformatics: Gene expressions profiles ∙ gene regulation networks ∙ genome bioinformatics ∙ pathwayanalysis ∙ prognostic biomarkers. Cancer Medicine publishes original research articles, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and research methods papers, along with invited editorials and commentaries. Original research papers must report well-conducted research with conclusions supported by the data presented in the paper.