All content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals only. By acknowledging this message and accessing the information on this website you are confirming that you are a healthcare professional. If you are a patient or carer, please visit the International Myeloma Foundation or HealthTree for Multiple Myeloma.
The Multiple Myeloma 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 Multiple Myeloma Hub Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The Multiple Myeloma Hub 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, Legend Biotech, Pfizer, and Roche. Funders are allowed no direct influence on our content. 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 multiple myeloma content recommended for you
A post hoc analysis of the phase III IMROZ study (NCT03319667) evaluated measurable residual disease (MRD) dynamics by next-generation sequencing in previously untreated, transplant-ineligible (TI) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) treated with isatuximab + bortezomib + lenalidomide + dexamethasone (Isa‑VRd) induction followed by Isa‑Rd maintenance or VRd followed by Rd. The analysis included 361 evaluable patients (Isa‑VRd/Isa‑Rd, n = 223; VRd/Rd, n = 138). Results were published in Blood by Orlowski et al.
Key data: Isa‑VRd/Isa‑Rd maintained higher MRD-negativity rates (10−5) than VRd/Rd over time (76.1% vs 40.0% at 60 months; odds ratio [OR], 4.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34–17.04). Among patients MRD-negative at induction, fewer converted to MRD-positive during maintenance with Isa‑VRd/Isa‑Rd vs VRd/Rd (5.6% vs 26.9% at 24 months; 12.3% vs 34.8% at 36 months). Among patients who converted from MRD-negative to MRD-positive at any timepoint, time to progression favored Isa‑VRd/Isa‑Rd (hazard ratio [HR], 0.275; 95% CI, 0.114–0.664; p = 0.0041).
Key learning: Higher rates of MRD negativity and lower rates of conversion from MRD-negative to MRD-positive were observed with Isa‑VRd/Isa‑Rd than VRd/Rd in TI‑NDMM, supporting its use as a standard-of-care first-line treatment option in this setting.
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
Your opinion matters
On average, how many patients with MGUS/smoldering MM do you see in a month?