Real-world (RW) outcomes of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients (pts) treated with front-line daratumumab (dara), bortezomib (bor), lenalidomide (len) and dexamethasone (dex) (DVRd)

R Ricardo Parrondo (2Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, United States) R Ricardo de Menezes (2Hospital Moinhos de Vento, Department of Hematology, Porto Alegre, Brazil) H Hanna Sledge (3Mayo Clinic, Division of Quantitative Health Sciences, Jacksonville, United States) K Kanika Yadav (1Mayo Clinic, Hematology-Oncology, Transplantation and Cellular Therapies, Jacksonville, United States) M Madhavi Nayyar (All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, New Delhi, Delhi, India) P P. Leif Bergsagel (Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale) R Rafael Fonseca (IDOMED Vista Carioca, RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil) P Prashant Kapoor (Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN) F Francis Buadi (1Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States) M Morie Gertz (11Division of Hematology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN) A Angela Dispenzieri V Vivek Roy T Taimur Sher (1Mayo Clinic, Hematology-Oncology, Transplantation and Cellular Therapies, Jacksonville, United States) M Moritz Binder (Division of Hematology, Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic) N Nadine Abdallah (2Mayo Clinic, Division of Hematology, Rochester, United States) S Saurabh Chhabra (6The Mayo Clinic Arizona, Pheonix, United States) S S. Vincent Rajkumar W Wilson Gonsalves (1Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States) J Joselle Cook (1Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States) D David Dingli (1Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States) Y Yi Lin E Eli Muchtar (Mayo Clinic) C Caitlin Flott (1Mayo Clinic, Hematology-Oncology, Transplantation and Cellular Therapies, Jacksonville, United States) U Udit Yadav (4Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, United States) R Rahma Warsame (1Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States) J J Wiedmeier-Nutor (4Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, United States) T Taxiarchis Kourelis (1Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States) N Nelson Leung (1Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States) M Mustaqeem Siddiqui (1Mayo Clinic, Department of Internal Medicine, Rochester, United States) A Andre Fernandez (1Mayo Clinic, Hematology-Oncology, Transplantation and Cellular Therapies, Jacksonville, United States) S Shaji Kumar A Asher Chanan-Khan (1Mayo Clinic, Hematology-Oncology, Transplantation and Cellular Therapies, Jacksonville, United States) S Sikander Ailawadhi (17Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL)

Abstract

Abstract Background: The phase II and III GRIFFIN and PERSEUS studies evaluated DVRd vs. VRd in NDMM pts that were transplant eligible (TE). These studies included consolidation (cons) and dual agent maintenance (maint) with dara and len (DR). Little is known about the efficacy of DVRd in RW practice including frequency of bor use, use of cons, use of DR maint, and subsequent treatment after progression (PD) on DVRd. We aim to evaluate the RW efficacy of NDMM pts treated with DVRd across the tri-site Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer (MCCC). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of pts treated with DVRd between June 2018 and June 2024 at the MCCC. Outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: 464 pts were included; 278 pts were male, and the median (m) age of MM diagnosis was 64 years (yr). 114 pts had ISS III, 205 pts had R-ISS III, 266 pts had high risk (HR) FISH, 80 pts had extramedullary disease, 165 pts had ultra HR disease (dz) (as per 2025 IMS/IMWG consensus), and 47 pts had renal insufficiency (RI) with creatinine >2 mg/dL. Starting len dose was 25mg in 356 pts, 15 mg in 40 pts and ≤10mg in 65 pts. 399 pts received bor 1x per week and 63 2x per week, 91 pts received 1-2 cycles of a different regimen prior to DVRd due to hospitalization (n=23), RI (n=38), poor performance status (n=6), other (n=34). 315 (67.9%) pts underwent autologous transplant (ASCT). The m number of induction cycles was 5; 4 for pts who underwent ASCT and 6 for pts who did not. The best ORR to induction for pts who underwent ASCT was 98% with 247 (79%) achieving ≥VGPR, and 82 (26%) achieving minimal residual disease negativity (MRD-) to at least 10-5. The best ORR for pts who did not undergo ASCT was 87%. For those who underwent ASCT, (96% with melphalan 200mg/m2), the ORR at day 100 was 97% with 56% achieving MRD-. At 1-yr post ASCT, 30% (93/312) were MRD-. 42 pts (13%) received post ASCT cons with DVRd for a m of 2 cycles. 281 pts received post ASCT maint including 107 (38%) len, 53 (19%) bor-len, 91 (32%) dara-len, 14 (5%) dara, 16 (6%) other. 61(13%) pts had change in treatment, due to change to second line therapy (35; 55%), discontinuation (d/c) of len (11; 17%), d/c of dara (3; 5%), d/c of bor (15; 23%), d/c of dex (0; 0%). The m follow-up time for all pts was 26 months (mo) (17-39). The m PFS of pts who underwent ASCT was not reached (NR), and was 57 mo (52-NA) for pts who did not undergo ASCT. For pts who underwent ASCT, the PFS at 24mo for pts who did not have HR FISH was 93% (88-99%) compared to 80% (73-88%) for pts with HR FISH (p=0.12) and 77% (68-87%) for pts with ultra-HR dz (p=0.013).The PFS at 24mo of pts with RI who underwent ASCT was 81% (66-98%) compared to 86% (82-92%) for those without RI, p=0.57. The PFS at 24mo of pts with RI who did not undergo ASCT was 53% (28-100%) compared to 64% (55-75%) for those without RI, p=0.42. The ORR and MRD- rate for pts who received once-weekly bor was 94% and 24%, compared to 94% and 27% for pts who received 2x weekly bor (p=0.85, p=0.93). For pts who underwent ASCT, the PFS at 24mo for pts who received len maint was 91% vs. 83% for pts who receive dual agent maint (DR or VR) (p=0.25), although pts who got dual agent maint were more likely to have HR FISH than pts who received len maint (p<0.001). The PFS at 24mo for pts that received post-ASCT cons was 91% compared to 85% for those that did not (p=0.53); pts who got post-ASCT cons were more likely to have HR FISH (p=0.07). For pts that underwent ASCT, the 3 yr PFS rate is 85% and the 3 yrs OS rate is 96%. For pts that did not undergo ASCT the 3 yrs PFS rate is 60% and the 3 yr OS rate is 85%. 55 pts had functional HR (FHR) MM (relapse within 18 mo) and m PFS for FHR pts who underwent ASCT was 15 mo (11-NA), while m PFS was NR for pts without FHR MM (p<0.001). 79 pts relapsed after 1st line DVRd. The most common 2nd line therapies (tx) were dara-carfilzomib (K)-D, dara-pomalidomide(P)-D, KPD, and other. The m follow-up time from 2nd line tx was 10 mo, the best ORR to 2nd line tx was 76%, and the m PFS with 2nd line tx was 18 mo (7-NA). Conclusion: In this RW analysis, the efficacy and survival outcomes of NDMM pts treated with DVRd was comparable to that reported in the PERSEUS and GRIFFIN trials, although MRD- rates appear lower. DR maint and post-ASCT cons use was not common and was used more frequently in pts with HR FISH. Pts can be effectively salvaged following PD on front-line DVRd with available tx.

Article Details

Journal Blood
Volume / Issue Vol. 146, Issue Supplement 1
Published November 03, 2025
Pages 4585-4585
ISSN 0006-4971
Publisher Elsevier BV

Journal Info

Blood

Elsevier BV

ISSN: 0006-4971 Health Sciences

Authors (33)

R

Ricardo Parrondo

2Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, United States

R

Ricardo de Menezes

2Hospital Moinhos de Vento, Department of Hematology, Porto Alegre, Brazil

H

Hanna Sledge

3Mayo Clinic, Division of Quantitative Health Sciences, Jacksonville, United States

K

Kanika Yadav

1Mayo Clinic, Hematology-Oncology, Transplantation and Cellular Therapies, Jacksonville, United States

M

Madhavi Nayyar

All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, New Delhi, Delhi, India

P

P. Leif Bergsagel

Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale

R

Rafael Fonseca

IDOMED Vista Carioca, RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil

P

Prashant Kapoor

Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN

F

Francis Buadi

1Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States

M

Morie Gertz

11Division of Hematology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN

A

Angela Dispenzieri

V

Vivek Roy

T

Taimur Sher

1Mayo Clinic, Hematology-Oncology, Transplantation and Cellular Therapies, Jacksonville, United States

M

Moritz Binder

Division of Hematology, Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic

N

Nadine Abdallah

2Mayo Clinic, Division of Hematology, Rochester, United States

S

Saurabh Chhabra

6The Mayo Clinic Arizona, Pheonix, United States

S

S. Vincent Rajkumar

W

Wilson Gonsalves

1Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States

J

Joselle Cook

1Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States

D

David Dingli

1Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States

Y

Yi Lin

E

Eli Muchtar

Mayo Clinic

C

Caitlin Flott

1Mayo Clinic, Hematology-Oncology, Transplantation and Cellular Therapies, Jacksonville, United States

U

Udit Yadav

4Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, United States

R

Rahma Warsame

1Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States

J

J Wiedmeier-Nutor

4Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, United States

T

Taxiarchis Kourelis

1Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States

N

Nelson Leung

1Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States

M

Mustaqeem Siddiqui

1Mayo Clinic, Department of Internal Medicine, Rochester, United States

A

Andre Fernandez

1Mayo Clinic, Hematology-Oncology, Transplantation and Cellular Therapies, Jacksonville, United States

S

Shaji Kumar

A

Asher Chanan-Khan

1Mayo Clinic, Hematology-Oncology, Transplantation and Cellular Therapies, Jacksonville, United States

S

Sikander Ailawadhi

17Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL