Impact of Induction Therapy with VRD versus VCD on Outcomes in Patients with Multiple Myeloma in Partial Response or Better Undergoing Upfront Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation

Surbhi Sidana, Shaji Kumar, Raphael Fraser, Noel Estrada-Merly, Sergio Giralt, Vaibhav Agrawal, Larry D. Anderson, Mahmoud Aljurf, Rahul Banerjee, Asad Bashey, Minoo Battiwalla, Amer Beitinjaneh, Rajshekhar Chakraborty, Saurabh Chhabra, Binod Dhakal, Bhagirathbhai Dholaria, Shahrukh Hashmi, Murali Janakiram, Cindy Lee, Lazaros LekakisHemant S. Murthy, Ricardo Parrondo, Tamna Wangjam, Saad Usmani, Nina Shah, Muzaffar Qazilbash, Anita D'Souza

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Bortezomib-based triplet regimens—specifically bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRD) and bortezomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (VCD)—are the 2 most common induction regimens used in transplantation-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), with conflicting data on comparative efficacy and outcomes in this population. We compared long-term outcomes of patients with NDMM receiving VRD induction and those receiving VCD induction prior to autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Patients registered with the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Registry were included if they had undergone ASCT for MM within 6 months of diagnosis between January 2013 and December 2018, received VRD or VCD induction, and achieved a pretransplantation partial or better response. Of 1135 patients, 914 received VRD and 221 received VCD. The patients receiving VCD were more likely to have renal impairment and International Staging System (ISS) stage III disease and less likely to receive full-dose melphalan (200 mg/m2) conditioning (69% versus 80%; P <.001). Very good partial response rates pretransplantation, post-transplantation, and at best response were not significantly different in the 2 groups. Maintenance use was more common after VRD induction (88% versus 76%; P <.001), with lenalidomide the most common agent (80% versus 63%). Patients in the VRD group had a higher rate of renal recovery (74% versus 43%; P <.001), possibly due to a rapid reduction of light chains in the VRD group or improvement in renal function with VCD, which allowed a switch over to VRD, as patients who switched were classified in the VRD group. Patients receiving VRD had better survival on univariate analysis, with a median progression-free survival (PFS) from transplantation of 44.6 months versus 34.1 months (P =.004) and median 5-year overall survival (OS) of 79% versus 60% (P <.001). Multivariate analysis showed no significant survival difference, with a hazard ratio for VCD versus VRD induction of 1.22 (95% CI, 0.96 to 1.55; P =.10) for PFS and 1.33 (95% CI, 0.93 to 1.92, P =.12) for OS. Maintenance use was independently associated with superior PFS and OS, along with ISS stage, cytogenetics, and pretransplantation response (PFS only). In patients with MM undergoing upfront ASCT after VRD or VCD induction, no independent survival difference was seen based on the induction therapy received after adjusting for other prognostic factors. The use of maintenance treatment was uniformly associated with superior outcomes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)83.e1-83.e9
JournalTransplantation and Cellular Therapy
Volume28
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2022

Keywords

  • Induction therapy
  • Multiple myeloma
  • Upfront transplant

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Hematology
  • Transplantation
  • Immunology and Allergy
  • Cell Biology
  • Molecular Medicine
  • Medicine(all)

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Impact of Induction Therapy with VRD versus VCD on Outcomes in Patients with Multiple Myeloma in Partial Response or Better Undergoing Upfront Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this