The mm Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the mm Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The mm and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.
The Multiple Myeloma Hub is an independent medical education platform, sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi. The levels of sponsorship listed are reflective of the amount of funding given. View funders.
Now you can support HCPs in making informed decisions for their patients
Your contribution helps us continuously deliver expertly curated content to HCPs worldwide. You will also have the opportunity to make a content suggestion for consideration and receive updates on the impact contributions are making to our content.
Find out moreCreate an account and access these new features:
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View mm content recommended for you
On Sunday June 02, 2019, during the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in Chicago, US, the Multiple Myeloma Hub Co-Chair, Philippe Moreau, presented part 1 of the CASSIOPEIA trial results. This study, conducted on behalf of the Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome (IFM) and Hemato-Oncologie voor Volwassenen Nederland (HOVON), was a phase III, randomized study in transplant-eligible (TE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). It compared daratumumab, an anti-CD38 antibody, in combination with bortezomib, thalidomide and dexamethasone (D-VTd) to bortezomib, thalidomide and dexamethasone (VTd) alone. The results were published on the same day in The Lancet with a median follow-up of 18.8 months.
Results given as D-VTd versus VTd unless otherwise stated
Table 1: Patient characteristics
|
D-VTd (n = 543) |
VTd (n = 542) |
---|---|---|
Median age (years) |
59 |
58 |
ISS stage III disease |
84 (16%) |
81 (15%) |
High-risk cytogenetics |
82 (15% |
86 (16%) |
Completion of induction and consolidation |
85% |
81% |
ASCT conducted |
90% |
89% |
Discontinuations |
75 (14%) |
101 (19%) |
Main reasons for discontinuation: Adverse event (AE) or serious AE PD |
49 (9%) 19 (4%) |
55 (10%) 21 (4%) |
Deaths |
7 |
0 |
Table 2: Responses over time to D-VTd and VTd
* Stable disease (SD), or not available (NE) |
|||||
|
sCR |
CR |
VGPR |
PR |
SD/PD/NE* |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
D-VTd |
|
|
|
|
|
Post-induction |
7% |
7% |
51% |
28% |
7% |
Post-ASCT |
13% |
9% |
54% |
16% |
8% |
Post-consolidation |
29% |
10% |
45% |
9% |
7% |
VTd |
|
|
|
|
|
Post-induction |
7% |
2% |
47% |
34% |
10% |
Post-ASCT |
9% |
5% |
53% |
23% |
10% |
Post-consolidation |
20% |
6% |
52% |
12% |
10% |
Table 3: Safety data for D-VTd compared to VTd in relation to AEs, infusion related reactions (IRRs), secondary primary malignancies (SPMs) and data surrounding ASCT
|
D-VTd |
VTd |
---|---|---|
Treatment-emergent (TE) hematologic AEs grade ≥3: - Neutropenia - Thrombocytopenia - Lymphopenia |
148 (28% 59 (11%) 91 (17%) |
79 (15%) 40 (7%) 52 (10%) |
Treatment-emergent non-hematologic AEs grade ≥3: - Peripheral sensory neuropathy - Stomatitis - Nausea - Pyrexia |
47 (9%) 68 (13%) 21 (4%) 14 (3%) |
46 (9%) 88 (16%) 12 (2%) 12 (2%) |
IRRs of any grade |
190 (35%) |
0 (0%) |
Infections grade ≥3 |
118 (22%) |
105 (20%) |
Most common serious infection: pneumonia |
19 (4%) |
9 (2%) |
SPMs |
2% |
2% |
ASCT - Plerixafor usage - Median number CD34+ cells (106/kg) - Hematopoietic reconstitution |
110 (22%) 6.3 100% |
39 (8%) 8.9 100% |
Professor Moreau concluded that D-VTd provided a significant clinical benefit compared to VTd, in TE patients with NDMM. The patient responses deepened over time, and the D-VTd regimen gave a 53% reduction in the risk of progression or death. The new quadruplet was well-tolerated, with a safety profile consistent with that of the drugs already known (daratumumab as a single agent and VTd as a triplet combination). D-VTd can be considered a viable treatment option in this population.
References