Table 2

International Myeloma Working Group best response on treatment per study arm

ResponseArm A (N = 10) [N (%)]Arm B (N = 36) [N (%)]Arm C (N = 34) [N (%)]Arm D (N = 17) [N (%)]
Complete/stringent complete response 1 (10) 1 (3%) 1 (3)  
Very good partial response 1 (10) 4 (11) 3 (9)  
Partial response 3 (30) 9 (25) 18 (53) 1 (6) 
Minimal response 2 (20) 8 (22) 5 (15) 4 (23) 
Stable disease 2 (20) 7 (19) 1 (3) 8 (47) 
Progressive disease 1 (10) 5 (14) 3 (9) 4 (23) 
Not evaluable*  2 (6) 3 (9)  
Overall response rate (≥PR)  14 (39) 22 (65) 1 (6) 
ResponseArm A (N = 10) [N (%)]Arm B (N = 36) [N (%)]Arm C (N = 34) [N (%)]Arm D (N = 17) [N (%)]
Complete/stringent complete response 1 (10) 1 (3%) 1 (3)  
Very good partial response 1 (10) 4 (11) 3 (9)  
Partial response 3 (30) 9 (25) 18 (53) 1 (6) 
Minimal response 2 (20) 8 (22) 5 (15) 4 (23) 
Stable disease 2 (20) 7 (19) 1 (3) 8 (47) 
Progressive disease 1 (10) 5 (14) 3 (9) 4 (23) 
Not evaluable*  2 (6) 3 (9)  
Overall response rate (≥PR)  14 (39) 22 (65) 1 (6) 
*

Two patients were randomized but did not receive study therapy and were included as treatment failure (one was randomized to arm B and the other to arm C). In addition, 3 patients did not complete a cycle of therapy and return for disease assessment and are included as not evaluable (treatment failure based on intent to treat).

The ORR (PR or better) for arm C was 64.7% (95% CI, 48.6-80.8), whereas the ORR for arm B was 38.9% (95% CI, 23-54.8; P = .035).

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal