During a Case-Based Roundtable® event, Laahn Foster, MD, discussed the SWOG S0777 and MAIA trials in transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in the second article of a 2-part series.
Laahn Ho Foster, MD
Associate Professor
University of Virginia School of Medicine
Charlottesville, VA
Targeted Oncology: What is the role of RVd (lenalidomide [Revlimid], bortezomib [Velcade], and dexamethasone) in patients with transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM)?
Laahn Ho Foster, MD: RVd is an excellent regimen based on the SWOG S0777 study [NCT00644228], looking at RVd vs Rd [lenalidomide plus dexamethasone].1 The way that RVd was used was for 8 cycles, basically 6 months, and then it was followed by Rd maintenance. The Rd [arm] was just Rd [for 6 cyles of 28 days] and then was continued on a maintenance schedule. We could see the difference in how patients responded to RVd vs Rd. [At median follow-up of 84 months], they did better on RVd with a median progression-free survival [PFS] of 41 months vs 29 months with Rd [HR, 0.742; 96% CI, 0.594-0.928; P = .003].1
And [for overall survival (OS)] they have a separation of results [HR, 0.709; 96% CI, 0.543-0.926; P =.0114].1 The thing about this study is that this was a younger population. The difference between this and the MAIA study [NCT02252172], is that the patients in the study were younger, [many of whom were] less than the age of 65. The Kaplan-Meier curves show how they did and the patients who were older than 65 tended to do worse [with a median PFS of 65 months in those 65 or older vs not reached in those younger than 65 years old].1
What adverse events are of most concern with RVd, and what has been done to mitigate them?
The neuropathy is a concern. With this regimen no one uses bortezomib twice weekly at this point. There was a lot of neuropathy [on the trial], but going down to the once weekly dosing of bortezomib has mitigated that risk.2
RVd-lite is a modification of how RVd is given.3 They’ve extended the cycles of it, so instead of [lenalidomide being given on the first] 21 days and [bortezomib] twice weekly, you’re getting weekly bortezomib and a lower dose of lenalidomide [(15 mg vs 25 mg) on a 35-day cycle].2
What other option is available for treating newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in patients not intended to receive a stem cell transplant?
The other option [for these patients] is dara-Rd [daratumumab (Darzalex), lenalidomide, and dexamethasone] supported by the MAIA study, looking at dara-Rd vs Rd. Again, just note that this is an older population with a median age of 73 years old [vs 63 years in the SWOG S0777 study].2,4
The overall response rates [in the MAIA study] were over 90% for dara-Rd, 93% vs 82% for Rd, and the depth of response [was demonstrated by] the complete response (CR) rate [which showd] more than 51% achieved a CR or better, and that’s compared with approximately 30% for the Rd arm.5 The minimal residual disease negativity rates show it was approximately 32% for dara-Rd vs 11% for Rd.
[Further], the PFS is significantly longer with the dara-Rd [HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.45-0.67; P < .0001], and it also looks like there’s an OS benefit in these patients who are treated with dara-Rd vs Rd [HR, 0.65; 0.52-0.80; P < .0001].6
What impact did daratumumab have on the toxicities these patients experienced?
It didn’t seem that the addition of daratumumab changed the safety profile [of the therapy] all that much.4,7 There was a little bit more in terms of cytopenias that you’ll notice, and there was a bit more in terms of diarrhea [57% any-grade with dara-Rd vs 46% any-grade with Rd].
What additional analyses of the MAIA data give insight into the use of dara-Rd?
[In a post hoc analysis] we can see the outcomes in frail patients on dara-Rd. They separated [patients by] whether they were frail vs not frail. The patients who were not frail, as you would expect, did better than the patients in the frail cohort [with a HR of 0.48 favoring dara-Rd in the non-frail cohort and a HR of 0.62 favoring dara-Rd in the frail cohort].8
We can see the differences in how patients did in the younger group vs the older group for PFS [in those] less than 75 years old [with a 60-month PFS rate of 57.4% for dara-Rd vs 33.6% for Rd], and in those patients less than 70 years old [with a 60-month PFS rate of 67.2% vs 28.7%, respectively].8 There are separations [between] how patients did with dara-Rd vs Rd, and of course, the patients who were younger seemed to do better than the older subgroup.
Key Trials From ASH 2024 Impact Treatment for Plasma Cell Disorders Going Forward
February 20th 2025Peers & Perspectives in Oncology editorial board member Marc J. Braunstein, MD, PhD, FACP, discussed the significant advancements in multiple myeloma treatment at the 2024 ASH Annual Meeting and Exposition.
Read More