Daratumumab, bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone, upfront autologous transplant and lenalidomide maintenance for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma
Abstract
Abstract Background: The quadruplet induction regimen of daratumumab, bortezomib, lenalidomide (Len), and dexamethasone (DVRD) has shown deeper responses and improved survival compared to triplet induction (VRD) in prospective clinical trials for transplant-eligible newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM). DVRD induction followed by autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (autoHCT) and Len maintenance has become the standard of care for transplant-eligible, newly diagnosed MM patients. Real world data for this approach is still scarce. Methods: We performed a retrospective, single-center analysis on newly-diagnosed MM patients, who received DVRD induction, autoHCT, and Len maintenance between January 2021 and August 2024. High-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCA) were defined as del17p, t(4;14), t(14;16), 1q21 gain or amplification by fluorescence in situ hybridization. We also identified high-risk patients using the 2025 International Myeloma Society (IMS)/International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) risk classification (Avet-Loiseau et al. JCO 2025). Primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS). Minimal residual disease (MRD) status was determined in bone marrow samples using an 8-color next generation flow (NGF) assay with a sensitivity of 1/10⁵ cells (0.001%) on 2 million events. Results: Seventy-one patients were included in the analysis. The median age at autoHCT was 61.5 years (range 40-77), 35% (n=25) were female and 16% identified as Black (n=11). Thirty-one percent of patients had Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation-specific Comorbidity Index (HCT-CI) of >3 (n=22), 22% (n=16) had HRCA, and 15% (n=10) had stage III Revised International Staging System (R-ISS) disease. 38% had high-risk disease by 2025 IMS/IMWG criteria. Patients received a median of 4 DVRD induction cycles (range 2-11). The maximum Len dose during induction was ≥20mg in 82%. Prior to transplant, 21% (n=15) of patients achieved complete response (CR) and 79% (n=57) achieved ≥very good partial response (VGPR); 49% had MRD negative status. At day 100 post-transplant, 44% (n=32) achieved CR and 94% (n=68) achieved ≥VGPR. At best post-transplant response, 72% (n=52) achieved CR and 98% (n=70) ≥VGPR, while 71% had MRD negative status. Median times to neutrophil (ANC>500) and platelet (>20K) engraftment were 12 (range, 12-14) and 13 (range, 9-19) days, respectively. With a median follow up of 22.1 months (range 3.9-47.4), the 1- and 2-year PFS rates for the entire cohort were 94% and 88%, respectively. In univariate analysis, there was a trend towards inferior PFS in patients with R-ISS stage III (hazard ratio (HR), 4.19; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82-21.48; p=0.09) and those with high-risk disease by the 2025 IMS/IMWG criteria (HR, 3.17; 95% CI, 0.82-12.34; p=0.10). For patients with high-risk disease per 2025 IMS/IMWG criteria the 1-year and 2-year PFS rates were 83% and 77%, respectively. Only two patients died during the follow up, therefore overall survival analysis was not performed. Conclusion: In this single-center analysis of MM patients who received DVRD induction, autoHCT and Len maintenance, we showed CR and MRDnegativity rates of 72% and 71%, respectively, and 2-year PFS of 88%. Patients with high-risk disease by the new IMS/IMWG criteria had a worse 2-year PFS of 77%, and these patients may need an alternative therapeutic approach, such as a doublet maintenance regimen.
Article Details
Authors (22)
Oren Pasvolsky
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, United States
Muhammad Bilal Abid
2MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
Denai Milton
1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
Mark Tanner
1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
Qaiser Bashir
1MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Stem Cell Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, Houston, United States
Samer Srour
1MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Stem Cell Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, Houston, United States
Neeraj Saini
Paul Lin
Jeremy Ramdial
3The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Stem Cell Transplantation & Cellular Therapy, Houston, United States
Yago Nieto
1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Hematopathology, Houston, United States
Guilin Tang
Asad Haider
1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
Yosra Aljawai
1MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Stem Cell Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, Houston, United States
Partow Kebriaei
MD Anderson Cancer Center
Mahmoud Gaballa
4The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
Krina Patel
4The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States
Jing Christine Ye
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, University of Texas, Houston
Sheeba Thomas
1The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Lymphoma and Myeloma, Houston, United States
Robert Orlowski
University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston
Richard Champlin
1MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Stem Cell Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, Houston, United States
Elizabeth Shpall
Muzaffar Qazilbash
1MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Stem Cell Transplantation and Cellular Therapy, Houston, United States