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 more
Create an account and access these new features:
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View mm content recommended for you
CEPHEUS: Long-term follow-up of D-VRd vs VRd in transplant-ineligible NDMM
|
The current SoC for transplant-ineligible NDMM is triplet therapy with D-Rd or VRd.1 The phase III CEPHEUS trial (NCT03652064) evaluated the efficacy and safety of the quadruplet therapy D-VRd vs VRd in patients with NDMM who were transplant-ineligible or transplant-deferred.1 Eligible patients were randomized to receive D-VRd (n = 197) or VRd (n = 195).1 The primary endpoint was the overall MRD-negativity rate, defined as the proportion of patients who achieved ≥CR and had MRD-negative status after randomization and before progression. Key secondary endpoints included ≥CR rate, PFS, and sustained MRD-negativity rate at ≥12 months. Results were published in Nature Medicine by Usmani et al.1 |
| Key learnings |
| After a median follow-up of 58.7 months, the overall MRD negativity rate with CR or ≥CR was higher in the D-VRd vs VRd group (60.9% vs 39.4%; OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.58–3.55; p < 0.0001). |
| ≥CR rates (81.2% vs 61.6%; OR, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.71–4.34; p < 0.0001) and sustained MRD-negativity rates (48.7% vs 26.3%; OR, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.73–4.00; p < 0.0001) were higher in the D-VRd vs VRd group, respectively. |
| The most frequent Grade 3 or 4 TEAEs were neutropenia (44.2% vs 29.7%) and thrombocytopenia (28.4% vs 20.0%), while SAEs occurred in 72.1% vs 67.2% of patients in the D-VRd and VRd groups, respectively. |
| A lower risk of disease progression or death translated to improved PFS in the D-VRd vs VRd group (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41–0.79; p = 0.0005). |
| These findings show that D-VRd improved rates of MRD negativity and durability of responses compared to VRd in patients with NDMM who were transplant-ineligible or transplant-deferred. This is consistent with the PERSEUS trial, supporting the D-VRd quadruplet therapy as the new SoC. |
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; CR, complete response; D-VRd, daratumumab-bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone; HR, hazard ratio; MRD, measurable residual disease; NDMM, newly diagnosed multiple myeloma; PFS, progression-free survival; SoC, standard of care; SAE, serious adverse event; TEAE, treatment-related adverse event; VRd, bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone.
References
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements:
The content was clear and easy to understand
The content addressed the learning objectives
The content was relevant to my practice
I will change my clinical practice as a result of this content
