Search

Abstract Aims The purpose of this prospective, randomized study was to investigate the effectiveness and safety of the ixazomib+cyclophosphamide+dexamethasone (ICd) and ixazomib+dexamethasone (Id) regimens in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) who were elderly and frail and to compare the two regimens. Methods Patients were randomly grouped into ICd and Id group. The primary end point was ORR, and patients who received at least two cycles were analyzed. The median follow‐up was 13.5 months. After nine induction cycles, patients were instructed to take single ixazomib for maintenance. Results The overall response rate in the ICd and Id groups was 78.9% and 70.6%, respectively, whereas the very good partial remission or better rate was 47.4% and 23.5%, respectively. For the ICd and Id groups, the response rate after 4 cycles was 76.5% and 57.1%, and the median duration to response was 2 and 4 months, respectively. Adverse events (AEs) included gastrointestinal intolerance, rash, fatigue, and thrombocytopenia, with severe AEs occurring in 21.1% and 23.5% patients in the ICd and Id groups, respectively, and the AEs were manageable. Both the QLQ‐C30 and QLQ‐MY20 scales indicated that ICd and Id regimens could help maintain and improve the quality of life(QoL). Conclusions The ICd and Id regimens might be effective and well‐tolerated in elderly and frail patients with NDMM. In addition, a favorable outcome was observed that ICd might tend to cause faster and higher remission than Id regimen without increasing the risk of AEs. The long‐term effectiveness and safety of the two regimens need further investigation.

Aims: The purpose of this prospective, randomized study was to investigate the effectiveness and safety of the ixazomib+cyclophosphamide+dexamethasone (ICd) and ixazomib+dexamethasone (Id) regimens in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) who were elderly and frail and to compare the two regimens. Methods: Patients were randomly grouped into ICd and Id group. The primary end point was ORR, and patients who received at least two cycles were analyzed. The median follow‐up was 13.5 months. After nine induction cycles, patients were instructed to take single ixazomib for maintenance. Results: The overall response rate in the ICd and Id groups was 78.9% and 70.6%, respectively, whereas the very good partial remission or better rate was 47.4% and 23.5%, respectively. For the ICd and Id groups, the response rate after 4 cycles was 76.5% and 57.1%, and the median duration to response was 2 and 4 months, respectively. Adverse events (AEs) included gastrointestinal intolerance, rash, fatigue, and thrombocytopenia, with severe AEs occurring in 21.1% and 23.5% patients in the ICd and Id groups, respectively, and the AEs were manageable. Both the QLQ‐C30 and QLQ‐MY20 scales indicated that ICd and Id regimens could help maintain and improve the quality of life(QoL). Conclusions: The ICd and Id regimens might be effective and well‐tolerated in elderly and frail patients with NDMM. In addition, a favorable outcome was observed that ICd might tend to cause faster and higher remission than Id regimen without increasing the risk of AEs. The long‐term effectiveness and safety of the two regimens need further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]