Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Apr 1;39(10):1139-1149.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.01814. Epub 2021 Jan 29.

Evaluation of Sustained Minimal Residual Disease Negativity With Daratumumab-Combination Regimens in Relapsed and/or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Analysis of POLLUX and CASTOR

Affiliations

Evaluation of Sustained Minimal Residual Disease Negativity With Daratumumab-Combination Regimens in Relapsed and/or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Analysis of POLLUX and CASTOR

Hervé Avet-Loiseau et al. J Clin Oncol. .

Abstract

Purpose: In relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma, daratumumab reduced the risk of progression or death by > 60% in POLLUX (daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone [D-Rd]) and CASTOR (daratumumab/bortezomib/dexamethasone [D-Vd]). Minimal residual disease (MRD) is a sensitive measure of disease control. Sustained MRD negativity and outcomes were evaluated in these studies.

Methods: MRD was assessed via next-generation sequencing (10-5) at suspected complete response (CR), 3 and 6 months following confirmed CR (POLLUX), 6 and 12 months following the first dose (CASTOR), and every 12 months post-CR in both studies. Sustained MRD negativity (≥ 6 or ≥ 12 months) was evaluated in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and ≥ CR populations.

Results: The median follow-up was 54.8 months in POLLUX and 50.2 months in CASTOR. In the ITT population, MRD-negativity rates were 32.5% versus 6.7% for D-Rd versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) and 15.1% versus 1.6% for D-Vd versus bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd; both P < .0001). Higher MRD negativity rates were achieved in ≥ CR patients in POLLUX (D-Rd, 57.4%; Rd, 29.2%; P = .0001) and CASTOR (D-Vd, 52.8%; Vd, 17.4%; P = .0035). More patients in the ITT population achieved sustained MRD negativity ≥ 6 months with D-Rd versus Rd (20.3% v 2.1%; P < .0001) and D-Vd versus Vd (10.4% v 1.2%; P < .0001), and ≥ 12 months with D-Rd versus Rd (16.1% v 1.4%; P < .0001) and D-Vd versus Vd (6.8% v 0%). Similar results for sustained MRD negativity were observed among ≥ CR patients. More patients in the daratumumab-containing arms achieved MRD negativity and sustained MRD negativity, which were associated with prolonged progression-free survival.

Conclusion: Daratumumab-based combinations induce higher rates of sustained MRD negativity versus standard of care, which are associated with durable remissions and prolonged clinical outcomes.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02136134 NCT02076009.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIG 1.
FIG 1.
PFS based on MRD status (10−5) in POLLUX (A) and CASTOR (B). Shown are the results of the Kaplan-Meier estimates of PFS among patients in the ITT population based on the absence of MRD at a threshold of one tumor cell per 105 white cells. Blue lines show regimens containing daratumumab; red lines show standard-of-care regimens. D-Rd, daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone; D-Vd, daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone; ITT, intention-to-treat; MRD, minimal residual disease; PFS, progression-free survival; Rd, lenalidomide and dexamethasone; Vd, bortezomib and dexamethasone.
FIG 2.
FIG 2.
PFS based on sustained MRD negativity (10−5; ≥ 6 months) in the ITT populations of POLLUX (A) and CASTOR (B). Shown are the results of the Kaplan-Meier estimates of PFS among patients in the ITT population based on sustained MRD negativity ≥ 6 months at a threshold of one tumor cell per 105 white cells. Blue lines show regimens containing daratumumab; red lines show standard-of-care regimens. D-Rd, daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone; D-Vd, daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone; ITT, intention-to-treat; MRD, minimal residual disease; PFS, progression-free survival; Rd, lenalidomide and dexamethasone; Vd, bortezomib and dexamethasone.
FIG 3.
FIG 3.
PFS based on sustained MRD negativity (10−5; ≥ 12 months) in the ITT populations of POLLUX (A) and CASTOR (B). Shown are the results of the Kaplan-Meier estimates of PFS among patients in the ITT population based on sustained MRD negativity ≥ 12 months at a threshold of one tumor cell per 105 white cells. Blue lines show regimens containing daratumumab; red lines show standard-of-care regimens. D-Rd, daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone; D-Vd, daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone; ITT, intention-to-treat; MRD, minimal residual disease; PFS, progression-free survival; Rd, lenalidomide and dexamethasone; Vd, bortezomib and dexamethasone.
FIG 4.
FIG 4.
PFS by response and MRD status (10−5) among (A) all patients in POLLUX and CASTOR and (B) in the pooled daratumumab-based combination groups versus control groups. Shown are the results of the Kaplan-Meier estimates of PFS among patients in the ITT population based on the absence of MRD at a threshold of one tumor cell per 105 white cells and on response category (≥ CR, ≤ VGPR). In panel A, blue line shows patients who achieve ≥ CR and MRD negativity at any time since random assignment; red line shows patients who achieve ≤ VGPR or are MRD-positive. In panel B, blue lines show regimens containing daratumumab; red lines show standard-of-care regimens. ≥ CR, complete response or better; D-Rd, daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone; D-Vd, daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone; HR, hazard ratio; ITT, intention-to-treat; MRD, minimal residual disease; PFS, progression-free survival; Rd, lenalidomide and dexamethasone; Vd, bortezomib and dexamethasone; ≤ VGPR, very good partial response or worse.

References

    1. Kumar S Paiva B Anderson KC, et al. : International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol 17:e328-e346, 2016 - PubMed
    1. Mailankody S Korde N Lesokhin AM, et al. : Minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma: Bringing the bench to the bedside. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 12:286-295, 2015 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Munshi NC Avet-Loiseau H Rawstron AC, et al. : Association of minimal residual disease with superior survival outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma: A meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol 3:28-35, 2016 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Landgren O Devlin S Boulad M, et al. : Role of MRD status in relation to clinical outcomes in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients: A meta-analysis. Bone Marrow Transpl 51:1565-1568, 2016 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Perrot A Lauwers-Cances V Corre J, et al. : Minimal residual disease negativity using deep sequencing is a major prognostic factor in multiple myeloma. Blood 132:2456-2464, 2018 - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Associated data