Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Background Comparative 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. Methods This 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. Results The 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). Conclusions In 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.
Han et al. (Wed,) studied this question.