# Real-World Outcomes in Transplant-Ineligible Patients With Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Treated With Bortezomib/Cyclophosphamide/Dexamethasone and Bortezomib/Lenalidomide/Dexamethasone as Upfront Treatment

## TL;DR

This study compares two treatment regimens for multiple myeloma in patients who cannot receive transplants and finds similar outcomes between them.

## Contribution

The study provides real-world evidence on the effectiveness of VCD and VLD regimens in transplant-ineligible multiple myeloma patients.

## Key findings

- Both VCD and VLD regimens achieved similar overall response rates in transplant-ineligible patients.
- There was no statistically significant difference in overall survival between the two treatment groups.
- The study suggests both regimens are viable options for patients in low- and middle-income countries.

## Abstract

Introduction

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a hematological disorder characterized by aberrant multiplication of malignant plasma cells in the bone marrow. The current mainstay of treatment for patients with newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) is a triplet regimen with a proteasome inhibitor, immunomodulatory imide, and dexamethasone. The two most common of these triplet regimens are VLD (bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone) and VCD (bortezomib/cyclophosphamide/dexamethasone). This study aims to compare the outcomes between these two therapies in transplant-ineligible patients with NDMM.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study at the Aga Khan University Hospital in Karachi, Pakistan. All NDMM transplant-ineligible patients either receiving VLD or VCD therapy between January 2015 and December 2022 were included in our study. Hematological parameters before and after treatment were obtained from hospital records. Response to treatment was classified according to the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) response criteria as either complete response (CR), very good partial response (VGPR), partial response (PR), minimal response (MR), stable disease (SD), or progressive disease (PD). The response to treatment as well as overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) was compared between VCD and VLD therapy. A p-value of 0.05 or less was taken to be statistically significant.

Results

Twenty (23.8%) patients in the VCD group and 20 (23.0%) in the VLD group underwent complete remission. Seven (8.3%) patients experienced disease progression in the VCD group, while the figure stood at three (3.4%) in the VLD group. There was no statistically significant difference in the overall response rate between the VCD (58; 69.0%) and VLD (70; 80.5%) groups (p=0.086), a difference that was not statistically significant on the Chi-square test. OS was comparable between VCD (69.1 months, 95%CI: 61.3-77.0) and VLD (76.9 months, 95%CI: 69.0-85.0) therapies.

Conclusions

The study did not identify any statistically significant distinction in the treatment outcomes between the VCD and VLD regimens among NDMM patients ineligible for transplantation. Nevertheless, the study highlights the positive outcomes observed with both treatments in this specific patient cohort. This implies that either regimen could be deemed suitable as a treatment option for patients in low- and middle-income countries. Since both regimens demonstrate comparable effectiveness, assessing the cost-effectiveness of these regimens is crucial. Future research should also explore the economic aspects of the two treatment options.