The treatment of patients primary refractory or with sub-optimal response to d-VTD induction: An italian real-life Study
Abstract
Abstract Despite the improvement in the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) patients, there is still a consistent fraction of patients who have a primary refractory MM (PRMM) or relapse early during treatment. Up to now in Italy the treatment for newly diagnosed transplant eligible (TE) patients is settled by Daratumumab-Bortezomib-Thalidomide-Dexamethasone (D-VTD) induction; however, there is a significant proportion of patients who progressed or have a sub-optimal response whose outcome is dismal. Even though these patients are now suitable to be enrolled in clinical trials with novel immunotherapies like CAR-T cell and bispecific antibodies, the treatment of these cases outside clinical trials is not clearly established. With this background, the aim of this study is to retrospectively and prospectively evaluate the efficacy of the current standard second-line treatments in real-life settings for fit patients who progressed or have a sub-optimal response (≥partial response) to D-VTD induction and are not suitable to receive ASCT frontline. Between1th January 2022 to 30th June 2025, 88 patients (51% males) followed in 18 Italian centers were included in this study. The median age was 62 years (37-72). Considering baseline features, 31/81 (38.3%) had high LDH levels and 32/87 (37%) were ISS III. In 58 cases FISH analysis was available and 35/58 (60.4%) cases were high-risk (HR) [including t(4,14), t(14,16), del17p and +1q], with 18 patients displaying ≥2 HR alterations. By R-ISS and R2-ISS, 32% (19/59) and 22.7% (10/44) were R-ISS III and R2-ISS IV, respectively. Finally, 7 cases had extramedullary disease at diagnosis (8.1%). After a median number of 4 cycles of D-VTD, all patients switched to a second line treatment, in 55/86 (64%) cases due to progressive disease (56% symptomatic, 44%, biochemical), in 21/86 (24.4%) due to sub-optimal response, while in 10/86 (11.6%) due to refractory disease. In the remaining two cases, this info was not available. As second line treatment, most patient received KRD as salvage (73/88, 83%), followed by intensive chemo-based (VD/KRD-PACE) regimens in 8 cases (9.1%), other Lenalidomide-based combinations in 4 cases (4.5%) and Isa-KD in 3 cases (3.4%). The overall response rate to second line treatment was 74%, with ≥VGPR rate of 53.2% and 16.2% of CR/sCR. With a median follow up of 15 months, the median PFS was 17 months, and the median OS has not been reached (12-months OS: 79%). Considering HR disease prognostic factors, an inferior PFS was observed in patients with baseline HR cytogenetic (8.4 months vs not reached, p=0.073) and at relapse high LDH levels (6.8 months vs not reached, p=0.0009), β2 microglobulin >3.5mg/dL (4.9 months vs not reached, p=0.0005) and albumin <3.5g/dL, (6.8 months vs 24 months, p=0.082). Notably, patients with decreased renal function (eGFR<45ml/min) showed reduced PFS (3.8 months vs not reached, p<0.0001). Considering the reason to switch to second-line therapy, the treatment in case of refractory disease showed dismal outcome compared to progressive disease and sub-optimal response (3.6 months vs 14 months vs not reached, p=0.0001). In addition, in case of progressive disease, the patients treated due to biochemical relapse were characterized by longer PFS compared to symptomatic relapse (24 months vs 5.5 months, p=0.036). Achieving a high-quality response (≥VGPR) was associated with an improved PFS compared to PR or less (not reached vs 4.7 months and 2.5 months, respectively, p<0.0001). Finally, treatment with KRD showed a promising PFS of 24 months compared to the other combinations (8.8 months), although not statistically significant (p=0.44). Those patients who received at least an autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) (33/88, 37.5%) displayed a significantly better PFS compared those who did not receive ASCT (not reached vs 4.5 months, p<0.0001), with no significant differences between single (n=22) and tandem (n=11) ASCT (p=0.8). To our knowledge, this is the first study aiming to evaluate the outcome of patient's refractory or with sub-optimal response to D-VTD. The data herein presented confirmed the dismal prognosis of these functional high-risk cases, especially in case of symptomatic and aggressive relapse. However, a significant proportion of patients can be rescued by the second line treatment, particularly with KRD reinduction and ASCT.
Article Details
Authors (31)
Gregorio Barila
1Hematology Unit, San Bortolo hospital, Vicenza, Italy
Francesco Tarantini
2Hematology and Stem Cell Transplantation Unit, AOU Consorziale Policlinico, Bari, Italy
Alfonso Piciocchi
4GIMEMA, Rome, Italy
Maria Livia Del Giudice
4Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Hematology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
Edoardo Olivari
4Hematology and Bone Marrow Transplant Unit, ASST Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo, Italy
Tommaso Picardi
10Division of Hematology, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, Turin, Italy
Marina Tinelli
7Department of Medicine, Section of Hematology, University of Verona, Verona, Italy
Francesca Fazio
3Division of Hematology, Department of Translational and Precision Medicine, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Policlinico Umberto I, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Roma, Italy
Beatrice Zannetti
6Hematology Unit, Ravenna Hospital, University of Bologna, Ravenna, Italy
Laura Pavan
5Hematology Unit , University of Padova, Padova, Italy
Carmine Liberatore
3Hematology Unit, Santo Spirito Hospital, Pescara, Italy
Sonia More'
1Hematology Unit, Department of Clinical and Molecular Sciences (DISCLIMO), Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy
Emanuele Favero
13Hematology and Transplant Center Unit, Udine University Hospital, DMED, University of Udine, Udine, Italy
Anna Furlan
13Hematology Unit, Ospedale Santa Maria di Ca' Foncello, Treviso, Italy
Francesca Farina
15Hematology and Bone Marrow Transplantation Unit, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milano, Italy
Angela Maria Quinto
Irene Attucci
17Hematology Unit, Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy
Silvia Gentili
8AST Macerata, UOSD Hematology, Civitanova Marche, Italy
Edoardo Scomazzon
1Hematology Unit, San Bortolo hospital, Vicenza, Italy
Nicola Sgherza
6Hematology and Stem Cell Transplantation Unit, AOU Consorziale Policlinico, Bari, Italy
Monica Galli
4Hematology and Bone Marrow Transplant Unit, ASST Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo, Italy
Alberto Tosetto
4University of Udine, Division of Hematology and BMT, Department of Medicine, Udine, Italy
Elisabetta Antonioli
2Hematology Unit, Careggi Hospital, Firenze, Italy
Gabriele Buda
Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Hematology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
Roberto Mina
Division of Hematology, Department of Molecular Biotechnology and Health Sciences, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
Elena Zamagni
Francesca Patriarca
18Università di Udine/Italy, Udine, Italy
Pellegrino Musto
17Unità di Ematologia e Trapianto di Midollo Osseo, AOUC Policlinico, Bari, Italy
Renato Zambello
2Department of Medicine (DIMED), Hematology and Clinical Immunology section, Padua University School of Medicine, Padova, Italy
Massimo Offidani
7Hematology Unit, AOU delle Marche, Ancona, Italy
Maria Teresa Petrucci
3Department of Medicine, Section of Hematology, University of Verona, Verona, Italy