In the primary analysis, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, D-VRd-DR reduced the risk of progression or death by 58% vs VRd-R at a median follow-up of 47.5 months, establishing the quadruplet as a standard of care in this setting.² The current analysis adds approximately 34 months of additional follow-up.1
At data cutoff, 61.5% of patients in the D-VRd-DR arm vs 25.4% in the VRd-R arm remained on treatment. The median total treatment duration was 68.7 months (range, 0.49-86.25) vs 42.2 months, and the median duration of maintenance was 63.0 months vs 39.8 months, respectively.
What did additional efficacy analyses show?
The PFS benefit favored D-VRd-DR across prespecified subgroups, including sex, age, International Staging System stage, myeloma type, and baseline ECOG performance status. Among patients with standard-risk cytogenetics, the 72-month PFS rate was 88.3% with D-VRd-DR vs 62.8% with VRd-R (HR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.18-0.39). Among patients with high-risk cytogenetics—defined as the presence of del(17p), t(4;14), or t(14;16)—the 72-month PFS rates were 55.0% vs 33.4%, respectively (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.34-0.89).
The overall MRD-negativity ≥CR rate at 10⁻⁵ was 77.2% in the D-VRd-DR arm vs 50.3% in the VRd-R arm (OR, 3.41; 95% CI, 2.46-4.73; P < .0001); at 10⁻⁶, the rates were 68.7% vs 36.7% (OR, 3.88; 95% CI, 2.83-5.31; P < .0001). Among patients who were not MRD negative with ≥CR at the end of consolidation, 64.2% of those receiving DR maintenance vs 39.3% of those receiving lenalidomide maintenance converted to MRD negativity (10⁻⁶) with ≥CR during maintenance (OR, 2.76; 95% CI, 1.86-4.10; P < .0001).
Of the 322 patients (91.7%) in the D-VRd-DR arm who received maintenance, 236 (73.3%) stopped daratumumab per protocol after achieving sustained MRD negativity; 175 of these patients (74.2%) had not restarted the agent at data cutoff. The median duration of maintenance before daratumumab discontinuation was 26.83 months (range, 24.5-68.5), and the median time from discontinuation to clinical cutoff was 44.06 months (range, 1.3-52.9).
PFS on the next line of therapy (PFS2) also favored D-VRd-DR (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.37-0.68; P < .0001), with the median not reached in either arm. Fewer patients in the D-VRd-DR arm required second-line therapy (14.2% vs 39.2%), and 72.8% of patients in the VRd-R arm who received second-line therapy were treated with an anti-CD38 antibody.
OS remains immature, with the median not reached in either arm. The 72-month OS rates were 85.9% with D-VRd-DR vs 78.6% with VRd-R (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.40-0.81; P = .0018); 51 and 84 deaths occurred, respectively.
What did the safety analysis show?
No new safety signals were observed with the additional 34 months of follow-up. Treatment discontinuation due to adverse effects (AEs) occurred in 13.4% of patients in the D-VRd-DR arm vs 31.4% in the VRd-R arm, and discontinuation due to progressive disease occurred in 12.3% vs 27.1%, respectively.
References
- Sonneveld P, Boccadoro M, Dimopoulos MA, et al. Long-term outcomes with daratumumab, bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (DVRd) versus VRd in transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (TE-NDMM) in the phase 3 PERSEUS study. Presented at: 23rd International Myeloma Society (IMS) Annual Meeting & Exposition; September 23-26, 2026; Glasgow, Scotland. Abstract LBA-07.
- Sonneveld P, Dimopoulos MA, Boccadoro M, et al. Daratumumab, bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2024;390(4):301-313. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2312054