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

Abstract

BackgroundComparative 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsThe 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).ConclusionsIn 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.