Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) versus bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd) in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) – interim results from the randomized Phase III COBRA trial.
Abstract
Abstract Background: VRd-based regimens are currently the standard for the frontline treatment in NDMM. KRd and KRd-based regimens show high efficacy but in direct comparison in the ENDURANCE randomized phase III trial there was no difference in PFS between KRd and VRd in NDMM. Here we report the pre-specified analysis of the randomized phase III COBRA trial (NCT03729804), evaluating the efficacy and safety of KRd vs VRd in patients with NDMM regardless of eligibility for upfront autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation or cytogenetic risks. Methods: Patients with NDMM were randomized 1:1 to receive either KRd or VRd. In the KRd arm, K was given i.v. at 56 mg/m² on days 1, 8, and 15 (20 mg/m² on days 1 cycle 1), R 25 mg orally on days 1–21, and D 40 mg weekly during 1-12 cycles of induction phase, and K 56 mg/m² on days 1 and 15, R 25 mg on days 1–21, and D 20 mg weekly during cycles 13-24 in the maintenance phase for a total of 24 cycles. In the VRd arm, patients received V 1.3 mg/m² s.c. on days 1, 4, 8, and 11; R 25 mg on days 1–14; and D 40 mg on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12, for eight 21-day cycles in the induction phase, which followed by sixteen 28-day cycles of Rd maintenance (R 25 mg on days 1–21, D 20 mg weekly), also for a total of 24 months. After maintenance, both arms received R 15 mg daily until progression or intolerance. The co-primary endpoints were minimal residual disease (MRD) negative complete response (CR) after 12 months and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety. MRD was assessed centrally using next-generation sequencing (clonoSEQ, Adaptive Biotechnologies). This primary analysis was conducted after all randomized patients had the opportunity to reach the 12-month MRD assessment. To allow for two co-primary endpoints, a p-value of 0.025 is needed for statistical significance. At this interim analysis, 86 of a projected 106 PFS events have occurred (81%). Based on O'Brien-Fleming type error-spending, the required p-value for this analysis is 0.011. The data cutoff for this analysis was July 25, 2025. All efficacy analyses are in intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Results: Between July 29, 2019, and July 25, 2024, a total of 250 patients were randomized 1:1 to KRd (n = 126) or VRd (n = 124). Baseline patient characteristics were balanced between the two groups regarding median age (66.0 vs 67.0), ISS stage III (26% vs 22%), ECOG performance status 1 or 2 (75% vs 75%) and the presence of high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (23% vs 23%), defined as presence of del(17p), t(4;14), or t(14;16). After a median follow-up of 35 months (range: 0–66), both co-primary endpoints were met. At 12 months, MRD was measured in 163 patients, of whom 147 had available MRD results (patients without MRD results due to progressive disease, death or other reasons were counted as MRD-positive on ITT). A higher proportion of patients achieved MRD-negative CR at the 10⁻⁵ threshold in the KRd arm compared to the VRd arm [31% vs 18%; OR=2.08, 95%CI: 1.15-3.77); p = 0.016]. This benefit was also observed for MRD-negative CR at the 10-6 threshold (19% vs 7%; OR=3.01, 95%CI: 1.34-6.77, p = 0.008]. PFS was significantly longer with KRd vs VRd treatment [median not reached vs 49 months; HR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.37–0.88; logrank p = 0.0095]. At the time of data cutoff, 38 patients had died: 20 in the KRd arm and 18 in the VRd. ORR were similar between the arms: 94% (KRd) vs 91% (VRd). However, a significantly greater proportion of patients achieved CR or better in the KRd arm (71% vs 53%; OR = 2.11, 95% CI: 1.26–3.56; p = 0.005). Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) were observed in 72% of patients in the KRd arm and 62% in the VRd arm. The most frequent Grade ≥3 hematologic AE was neutropenia, occurring in 21% of patients in the KRd arm and 11% in the VRd arm. The most common non-hematologic Grade ≥3 AE was lower respiratory tract infection (10% in both arms). Peripheral neuropathy (any grade) occurred in 17% and 56% of patients, and cardiac events (any grade) in 18% and 10% of patients in the KRd vs VRd arm, respectively. Two patients in the KRd arm died from treatment-related AEs (pneumonia, COVID-19). Conclusions:The randomized phase III COBRA trial showed superior efficacy of KRd compared VRd in NDMM, with safety profile consistent with prior reports. These findings support further evaluation of KRd-based induction regimens in NDMM.
Article Details
Authors (31)
Dominik Dytfeld
Tadeusz Kubicki
1Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland
Agata Tyczyńska
Medical University of Gdańsk, Department of Hematology and Transplantology and University Clinical Center Gdańsk, Department of Hematology, Transplantology and Cellular Therapies, Gdańsk, Poland
Marcin Rymko
2Rydygier Provincial Polyclinical Hospital in Toruń, Toruń, Poland
Krzysztof Jamroziak
Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
Fredrik Schjesvold
Jaroslaw Piszcz
6Medical University of Bialystok, Poland, Department of Hematology, Internal Medicine and Angiology with Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation Unit, Białystok, Poland
Tomasz Wróbel
Krzysztof Giannopoulos
14Medical University of Lublin, Department of Experimental Hematooncology, Lublin, Poland
Bartosz Pula
2Medical University of Łódź, Department of Hematology, Łódź, Poland
Agnieszka Konska
9Institute of Hematology and Blood Transfusion, Warsaw, Poland
Pawel Steckiewicz
Holy Cross Cancer Center, Department of Hematology and Bone Marrow Transplantation, Kielce, Poland
Juha Lievonen
12Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
Mateusz Ziarkiewicz
4Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
Pawel Bernatowicz
6Medical University of Bialystok, Bialystok, Poland
Lidia Gil
Anna Lojko-Dankowska
1Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland
Magdalena Matuszak
1Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland
Jan Zaucha
21Medical University of Gdańsk and University Clinical Center, Gdansk, Poland
Maria Czyzewska
3Provincial Hospital L. Rydygier, Toruń, Poland
Kamil Wisniewski
5Institute of Hematology and Transfusion Medicine, Department of Hematology, Warsaw, Poland
Magdalena Olszewska-Szopa
7Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland
Anna Pula
1University of Chicago, Medicine, Chicago, United States
Frank Wen
1University of Chicago, Medicine, Chicago, United States
Frida Bugge Askeland
1Oslo Myeloma Center, Oslo University Hospital, Department of Hematology, Oslo, Norway
Valdas Peceliunas
1Vilnius University, Faculty of Medicine and Hematology, Oncology and Transfusion Medicine Center, Vilnius University Hospital Santaros Klinikos, Vilnius, Lithuania
Jennifer Cooperrider
1University of Chicago, Medicine, Chicago, United States
Ken Jiang
1University of Chicago, Medicine, Chicago, United States
Theodore Karrison
Benjamin Derman
3The University of Chicago, Section of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, Chicago, United States
Andrzej Jakubowiak
8Section of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, The University of Chicago, Chicago, United States