Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Nantes, France
Cyrille Touzeau , Philippe Moreau , Aurore Perrot , Cyrille Hulin , Mamoun Dib , Mourad Tiab , Denis Caillot , Thierry Facon , Xavier Leleu , Niels W.C.J. van de Donk , Annemiek Broijl , Sonja Zweegman , Mark-David Levin , Michel Delforge , Lixia Pei , Veronique Vanquickelberghe , Carla De Boer , Tobias Kampfenkel , Jessica Vermeulen , Pieter Sonneveld
Background: In the phase 3 CASSIOPEIA study, D-VTd significantly improved outcomes vs VTd in TE NDMM pts at an 18.8-mo median follow-up. To allow earlier diagnosis and treatment of MM, the IMWG added 3 validated biomarkers (≥60% clonal bone marrow plasma cells, serum free light chain ratio ≥100, and > 1 focal bone lesion by MRI; “slim”) to the conventional “CRAB” diagnostic criteria. We present a subgroup analysis of CASSIOPEIA based on baseline slimCRAB criteria. Methods: TE NDMM pts were randomized 1:1 to 4 pre-ASCT induction and 2 post-ASCT consolidation cycles of D-VTd or VTd. The “slim-only” subgroup excludes pts with ≥1 conventional CRAB criterion based on data collected at baseline; the remaining pts were included in the “CRAB” subgroup. Results: Of 1085 randomized pts (543 D-VTd; 542 VTd), 81 were included in the slim-only subgroup (36 D-VTd; 45 VTd) and 1004 were included in the CRAB subgroup. In slim-only vs CRAB pts, 22% vs 54% had an ECOG score of ≥1, 4% vs 16% had ISS Stage III disease, and 11% vs 16% had high-risk cytogenetics. For D-VTd vs VTd pts in the slim-only group, these rates were 22% vs 22%, 8% vs 0%, and 6% vs 16%, respectively. Overall response rates (ORR) and rates of sCR, ≥CR, and MRD negativity were similar between slim-only and CRAB pts; for slim-only pts, rates were significantly higher for D-VTd vs VTd (Table). After an 18.8-mo median follow-up, progression-free survival (PFS) was not significantly different in slim-only vs CRAB pts, or in D-VTd vs VTd slim-only pts (Table). For D-VTd vs VTd CRAB pts, 18-mo PFS rates were 92% vs 84%, and 24-mo PFS rates were 89% vs 76%. Conclusions: Baseline characteristics indicate that slim-only pts were slightly fitter and of lower risk status vs CRAB pts; however, response rates, MRD-negativity rates, and PFS did not differ significantly between these groups. Among slim-only pts, significantly higher response and MRD-negativity rates were achieved with D-VTd vs VTd. Among CRAB pts, PFS rates were higher with D-VTd vs VTd. Clinical trial information: NCT02541383.
Slim-only | CRAB | Pvalue | Slim-only | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(n = 81) | (n = 1004) | D-Vth (n = 36) | Vth (n = 45) | Pvalue | ||
ORR, % | 90 | 91 | 0.4053 | 97 | 84 | 0.0377 |
sCR | 25 | 25 | 0.9776 | 36 | 16 | 0.0083 |
≥CR | 32 | 33 | 0.9690 | 50 | 18 | 0.0003 |
MRD neg(MFC, 10−5), % | 46 | 54 | 0.1261 | 67 | 29 | < 0.0001 |
Median PFS, mo | NR | NR | - | NR | NR | - |
PFS HR (95% CI) | 0.73 (0.36-1.50) | 0.3888 | 1.19 (0.30-4.78) | 0.8023 |
MFC, multiparametric flow cytometry; NR, not reached.
Disclaimer
This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org
Abstract Disclosures
2019 ASCO Annual Meeting
First Author: Cyrille Hulin
2019 ASCO Annual Meeting
First Author: Philippe Moreau
2019 ASCO Annual Meeting
First Author: Herve Avet-Loiseau
2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
First Author: Sagar Lonial