Efficacy and safety of weekly carfilzomib (70 mg/m²), dexamethasone, and daratumumab (KdD70) is comparable to twice-weekly KdD56 while being a more convenient dosing option: a cross-study comparison of the CANDOR and EQUULEUS studies

References

• Facon T, Dimopoulos MA, Dispenzieri A, et al. Final analysis of survival outcomes in the phase 3 FIRST trial of up-front treatment for multiple myeloma. Blood. 2018;131(3):301–310.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCarthy PL, Holstein SA, Petrucci MT, et al. Lenalidomide maintenance after autologous stem-cell transplantation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: A meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(29):3279–3289.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreau P, San Miguel J, Sonneveld P, et al. Multiple myeloma: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2017;28(suppl_4):iv52–iv61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NCCN. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN guidelines®): multiple myeloma version 3.2020; 2020 [cited 2020 Mar 3]. Available from: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/myeloma.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Pulte ED, Dmytrijuk A, Nie L, et al. FDA approval summary: lenalidomide as maintenance therapy after autologous stem cell transplant in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Oncologist. 2018;23(6):734–739.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreau P, Zamagni E, Mateos M-V. Treatment of patients with multiple myeloma progressing on frontline-therapy with lenalidomide. Blood Cancer J. 2019;9(4):38
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cornell RF, Kassim AA. Evolving paradigms in the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: increased options and increased complexity. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2016;51(4):479–491.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nijhof IS, van de Donk NWCJ, Zweegman S, et al. Current and new therapeutic strategies for relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: an update. Drugs. 2018;78(1):19–37.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sonneveld P, De Wit E, Moreau P. How have evolutions in strategies for the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma translated into improved outcomes for patients? Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2017;112:153–170.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nass J, Efferth T. Drug targets and resistance mechanisms in multiple myeloma. Cancer Drug Resist. 2018;1:87–117.
   Google Scholar
• Dimopoulos MA, Moreau P, Palumbo A, et al. Carfilzomib and dexamethasone versus bortezomib and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (ENDEAVOR): a randomised, phase 3, open-label, multicentre study. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(1):27–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dimopoulos MA, Oriol A, Nahi H, et al. Daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(14):1319–1331.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lonial S, Dimopoulos M, Palumbo A, et al. Elotuzumab therapy for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(7):621–631.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stewart AK, Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, et al. Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for relapsed multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(2):142–152.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreau P, Masszi T, Grzasko N, et al. Oral ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(17):1621–1634.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dimopoulos MA, Goldschmidt H, Niesvizky R, et al. Carfilzomib or bortezomib in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (ENDEAVOR): an interim overall survival analysis of an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(10):1327–1337.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palumbo A, Chanan-Khan A, Weisel K, et al. Daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(8):754–766.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dimopoulos M, Quach H, Mateos M-V, et al. Carfilzomib, dexamethasone, and daratumumab versus carfilzomib and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (CANDOR): results from a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study. Lancet. 2020;396(10245):186–197.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chari A, Martinez-Lopez J, Mateos M-V, et al. Daratumumab plus carfilzomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Blood. 2019;134(5):421–431.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreau P, Mateos M-V, Berenson JR, et al. Once weekly versus twice weekly carfilzomib dosing in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (A.R.R.O.W.). Interim analysis results of a randomised, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(7):953–964.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreau P, Kumar S, Boccia R, et al. Convenience, satisfaction, health-related quality of life of once-weekly 70 mg/m2 vs. twice-weekly 27 mg/m2 carfilzomib (randomized A.R.R.O.W. study). Leukemia. 2019;33(12):2934–2946.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar SK, Majer I, Panjabi S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of once weekly carfilzomib 70 mg/m2 plus dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma in the United States. Expert Rev Hematol. 2020;13(6):687–696.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mortenson GL, Salomo M. Quality of life in patients with multiple myeloma: a qualitative study. J Cancer Sci Ther. 2016;8:289–293.
   Google Scholar
• Klein J, Moeschberger M. Survival analysis: techniques for censored and truncated data. New York, NY: Springer; 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Dimopoulos MA, Niesvizky R, Weisel K, et al. Once- versus twice-weekly carfilzomib in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma by select patient characteristics: phase 3 A.R.R.O.W. study subgroup analysis. Blood Cancer J. 2020;10(3):35.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Austin PC. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating marginal hazard ratios. Stat Med. 2013;32(16):2837–2849.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. Am Stat. 1985;39(1):33–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rifkin RM, et al. Carfilzomib dosing patterns and time to next treatment among adult patients with multiple myeloma treated in the US community oncology setting. Blood. 2017;130(Supplement 1):3433.
   Google Scholar
• Laubach JP, Faber EA, Voorhees P, et al. The challenge of cross-trial comparisons using limited data. Haematologica. 2014;99(8):e145–e146.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richardson PG, San Miguel JF, Moreau P, et al. Interpreting clinical trial data in multiple myeloma: translating findings to the real-world setting. Blood Cancer J. 2018;8(11):109
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greipp PR, San Miguel J, Durie BGM, et al. International staging system for multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(15):3412–3420.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar SK, Dispenzieri A, Lacy MQ, et al. Continued improvement in survival in multiple myeloma: changes in early mortality and outcomes in older patients. Leukemia. 2014;28(5):1122–1128.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palumbo A, Avet-Loiseau H, Oliva S, et al. Revised international staging system for multiple myeloma: a report from international myeloma working group. J Cin Oncol. 2015;33(26):2863–2869.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Austin PC. The use of propensity score methods with survival or time-to-event outcomes: reporting measures of effect similar to those used in randomized experiments. Stat Med. 2014;33(7):1242–1258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Austin PC, Stuart EA. Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Stat Med. 2015;34(28):3661–3679.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar S, Durie B, Nahi H, et al. Propensity score matching analysis to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of daratumumab versus real-world standard of care therapies for patients with heavily pretreated and refractory multiple myeloma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2019;60(1):163–171.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rambaldi A, Ribera J-M, Kantarjian HM, et al. Blinatumomab compared with standard of care for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed/refractory Philadelphia chromosome-positive B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Cancer. 2020;126(2):304–310.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malard F, Mohty M. Management of patients with multiple myeloma during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet Haematol. 2020;7(6):e435–e437.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ESMO. European Society for Medical Oncology management and treatment adapted recommendations in the COVID-19 era: Multiple myeloma; 2020 [cited 2020 May 14]. Available from: https://www.esmo.org/guidelines/cancer-patient-management-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/haematological-malignancies-multiple-myeloma-in-the-covid-19-era.
   Google Scholar
• Genmab. Genmab announces U.S. FDA approval of subcutaneous formulation of daratumumab, DARZALEX FASPRO™ (daratumumab and hyaluronidase-fihj), for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma; 2020. Available from: https://ir.genmab.com/news-releases/news-release-details/genmab-announces-us-fda-approval-subcutaneous-formulation.
   Google Scholar
• Moench S. Subcutaneous daratumumab associated with higher patient satisfaction, drastically fewer infusion reactions than intravenous formulations; 2019. Available from: https://www.cancertherapyadvisor.com/home/news/conference-coverage/american-society-of-clinical-oncology-asco/asco-2019/multiple-myeloma-subcutaneous-daratumumab-higher-patient-satisfaction-risk/.
   Google Scholar