Table 1 Modern landscape of triple and quadruple regimens in transplant eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

From: Long term responders in frontline multiple myeloma—exception vs expectation of the modern era

Feature

PETHEMA/GEM2012 [4]

IFM-2009 [5]

DETERMINATION [6]

CASSIOPEIA [7]

GRIFFIN [8]

GMMG-HD7 [9]

PERSEUS [10]

GMMG -CONCEPT [11]

IsKia [12]

N

458

700

722

898

203

662

709

TE: 99

302

Phase of study

3

3

3

3

2

3

3

2

3

Treatment combination

VRd

VRd +/− ASCT

VRd +/− ASCT

R1: DVTd vs VTd

R2: Dara vs placebo

DVRd vs VRd

IsaVRd vs VRd

DVRd v VRd

IsaKRd

IsaKRd vs KRd

Primary endpoint

PFS

PFS

PFS

R1: sCR

p consolidation

R2: PFS

p maintenance

sCR

p consolidation

R1: MRD-

p induction

R2: PFS

p maintenance

PFS

MRD (-)10−5

MRD (-)10−5

Induction/consolidation

6/2 (28-day)

3/2 (28-day)

3/2 (21-day)

4/2 (28-day)

4/2 (21-day)

3/0 (42-day)

4/2 (28-day)

TE: 6/4 (28-day)

4/4 (28-day)

Maintenance duration

NR

Len 1 year

Indefinite

2 years

2 years

3 years

Indefinite

Indefinite

NR

Median follow-up (mo)

NR

90

76

45

50

NR

48

TE: 44

20

ORR (%)

80.6

NR

98 vs 95

92 vs 90

99 vs 92

90 vs 84

97 vs 94

TE: 95

NR

≥VGPR (%)

76

78 vs 69

83 vs 80

83 vs 78

96 vs 77

77 vs 61

95 vs 89

TE: 91

94 both

Post-consolidation sCR (%)

50 (CR)

NR

33 vs 28

29 vs 20

42 vs 32

 

69 vs 45

TE: 73

64 vs 67

MRD(−) 10−4(%)

66

79 vs 65

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

MRD(−) 10−5 (%)

NR

NR

55 vs 40

NR

64 vs 30

NR

75 vs 48

NR

77 vs 67

MRD(−) 10−6 (%)

NR

30 vs 20

NR

NR

36 vs 16

NR

65 vs 32

NR

67 vs 48

P-induction 10−5 (%)

29 (10−6)

NR

NR

NR

22 vs 8

50 vs 36

NR

NR

NR

P-ASCT 10−5 (%)

42 (10−6)

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

P-consolidation 10−5 (%)

66 (10−4)

NR

NR

57 vs 37

50 vs 20

NR

NR

68 vs 54

77 vs 67

P-maintenance 10−5 (%)

NR

NR

NR

NR

64 vs 30

NR

NR

82 vs 69

NR

MRD(−) 10−5 ≥ 12 mo

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

65 vs 30

63 vs 46

NR

4-year PFS (%)

NR

NR

NR

NR

87 vs 70

NR

84 vs 68

NR

NR

Median PFS (mo)

NR

47 vs 35

68 vs 46

NR vs 47

NR vs NR

NR

NR

OS (%)

NR

62 vs 60 (8-year)

81 vs 79 (5-year)

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

  1. N number, TE transplant eligible, VRd bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone, ASCT autologous stem cell transplant, DVTd daratumumab, bortezomib, thalidomide, dexamethasone, VTd bortezomib, thalidomide, dexamethasone, R1 first randomization, R2 second randomization, Dara daratumumab, DVRd daratumumab, bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone, IsaVRd isatuximab, bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone, IsaKRd isatuximab, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone, KRd carfilzomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone, PFS progression-free survival, sCR stringent complete response, p post, mo month, MRD minimal residual disease, Len lenalidomide, NR not reported, ORR overall response rate, VGPR very good partial response, OS overall survival.