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
Second part of the phase III CASSIOPEIA study meets its primary endpoint
Positive topline results from the second part of the phase III CASSIOPEIA (NCT02541383) study were announced on October 21, 2020.
The first part of the CASSIOPEIA study aimed to compare daratumumab (Dara), an anti-CD38 antibody, plus bortezomib (V), thalidomide (T), and dexamethasone (d) versus VTd alone in 1,085 transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. The quadruplet was well tolerated and provided significant clinical benefit compared with VTd in this population of patients (read the full results here).
The second part of the study evaluated Dara as maintenance treatment (16 mg/kg every 8 weeks, for up to 2 years) versus no treatment (observation) in patients who achieved a response; the primary endpoint of this second part was progression-free survival (PFS).
This second part met its primary endpoint of improving PFS at a pre-planned interim analysis (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.42–0.68; p < 0.0001), with a reduction in the risk of progression or death in patients who received Dara of 47%. The safety profile was consistent with the known Dara safety profile.
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