» Articles » PMID: 38698679

Clinical Outcomes of Pomalidomide-based and Daratumumab-based Therapies in Patients with Relapsed/refractory Multiple Myeloma: A Real-world Cohort Study in China

Overview
Journal Cancer Med
Specialty Oncology
Date 2024 May 3
PMID 38698679
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Comparative investigations evaluating the efficacy of pomalidomide-based (Pom-based) versus daratumumab-based (Dara-based) therapies in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) remain scarce, both in randomized controlled trials and real-world studies.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 140 RRMM patients treated with Pom-based or Dara-based or a combination of pomalidomide and daratumumab (DPd) regimens in a Chinese tertiary hospital between December 2018 and July 2023.

Results: The overall response rates (ORR) for Pom-based (n = 48), Dara-based (n = 68), and DPd (n = 24) groups were 57.8%, 84.6%, and 75.0%, respectively (p = 0.007). At data cutoff on August 1, 2023, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.7 months (95% CI: 5.0-6.5) for the Pom-based group, 10.5 months (5.2-15.8) for the Dara-based group, and 6.7 months (4.0-9.3) for the DPd group (p = 0.056). Multivariate analysis identified treatment regimens (Dara-based vs. Pom-based, DPd vs. Pom-based) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) as independent prognostic factors for PFS. In the subgroups of patients aged >65 years, with ECOG PS ≥2, lines of therapy ≥2, extramedullary disease or double-refractory disease (refractory to both lenalidomide and proteasome inhibitors), the superiority of Dara-based regimens over Pom-based regimens was not evident. A higher incidence of infections was observed in patients receiving Dara-based and DPd regimens (Pom-based 39.6% vs. Dara-based 64.7% vs. DPd 70.8%, p = 0.009).

Conclusions: In real-world settings, Pom-based, Dara-based, and DPd therapies exhibited favorable efficacy in patients with RRMM. Dara-based therapy yielded superior clinical response and PFS compared to Pom-based therapy.

Citing Articles

Clinical outcomes of pomalidomide-based and daratumumab-based therapies in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: A real-world cohort study in China.

Han X, Jiang X, He J, Zheng G, Xiong Y, Wen Y Cancer Med. 2024; 13(9):e7232.

PMID: 38698679 PMC: 11066492. DOI: 10.1002/cam4.7232.

References
1.
Rios-Tamayo R, Martin-Garcia A, Alarcon-Payer C, Sanchez-Rodriguez D, de la Guardia A, Garcia Collado C . Pomalidomide in the treatment of multiple myeloma: design, development and place in therapy. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2017; 11:2399-2408. PMC: 5574598. DOI: 10.2147/DDDT.S115456. View

2.
Voorhees P, Suman V, Tuchman S, Laubach J, Hassoun H, Efebera Y . A phase I/II study of ixazomib, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone for lenalidomide and proteasome inhibitor refractory multiple myeloma (Alliance A061202). Am J Hematol. 2021; 96(12):1595-1603. PMC: 8713771. DOI: 10.1002/ajh.26361. View

3.
Sonneveld P, Chanan-Khan A, Weisel K, Nooka A, Masszi T, Beksac M . Overall Survival With Daratumumab, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone in Previously Treated Multiple Myeloma (CASTOR): A Randomized, Open-Label, Phase III Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2022; 41(8):1600-1609. PMC: 10022857. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.21.02734. View

4.
Rajkumar S . Multiple myeloma: 2022 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management. Am J Hematol. 2022; 97(8):1086-1107. PMC: 9387011. DOI: 10.1002/ajh.26590. View

5.
Fu W, Li W, Hu J, An G, Wang Y, Fu C . Daratumumab, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone versus Bortezomib and Dexamethasone in Chinese Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Updated Analysis of LEPUS. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2022; 23(1):e51-e58. DOI: 10.1016/j.clml.2022.10.007. View