Table 2.

Phase III trials in relapsed and/or refractory MM: efficacy

Study (reference)RegimensPatients, nPrior therapies, median, n (range)Experimental vs placebo arm
ORR, %≥VGPR, %PFS, mo (HR)
Lenalidomide-based regimens 
 ASPIRE (25) Rd ± carfilzomib 792 2 (1-3) 87 vs 67 70 vs 40 26 vs 18 (0.69) 
 TOURMALINE-MM1 (28) Rd ± ixazomib 722 1 (1-3) 78 vs 72 48 vs 39 20.6 vs 14.7 (0.74) 
 ELOQUENT 2 (27) Rd ± elotuzumab 646 2 (1-3) 79 vs 66 33 vs 28 19.4 vs 14.9 (0.70) 
 POLLUX (29) Rd ± daratumumab 569 1 (1-11) 93 vs 76 76 vs 44 Not reached vs 18.4 (0.37) 
Bortezomib-based regimens 
 PANORAMA 1 (34) Vd ± panobinostat 768 1 (1-3) 61 vs 55 Not mentioned 12 vs 8 (0.63) 
 CASTOR (33) Vd ± daratumumab 498 2 (1->3) 83 vs 63 59 vs 29 Not reached vs 7.16 (0.39) 
 Randomized phase II study (35) Vd ± elotuzumab 150 1 (1-3) 66 vs 63 37 vs 27 9.7 vs 6.9 (0.72) 
 ENDEAVOR (31) Kd vs Vd 929 1 (1-3) 77 vs 63 54 vs 29 18.7 vs 9.4 (0.53) 
Study (reference)RegimensPatients, nPrior therapies, median, n (range)Experimental vs placebo arm
ORR, %≥VGPR, %PFS, mo (HR)
Lenalidomide-based regimens 
 ASPIRE (25) Rd ± carfilzomib 792 2 (1-3) 87 vs 67 70 vs 40 26 vs 18 (0.69) 
 TOURMALINE-MM1 (28) Rd ± ixazomib 722 1 (1-3) 78 vs 72 48 vs 39 20.6 vs 14.7 (0.74) 
 ELOQUENT 2 (27) Rd ± elotuzumab 646 2 (1-3) 79 vs 66 33 vs 28 19.4 vs 14.9 (0.70) 
 POLLUX (29) Rd ± daratumumab 569 1 (1-11) 93 vs 76 76 vs 44 Not reached vs 18.4 (0.37) 
Bortezomib-based regimens 
 PANORAMA 1 (34) Vd ± panobinostat 768 1 (1-3) 61 vs 55 Not mentioned 12 vs 8 (0.63) 
 CASTOR (33) Vd ± daratumumab 498 2 (1->3) 83 vs 63 59 vs 29 Not reached vs 7.16 (0.39) 
 Randomized phase II study (35) Vd ± elotuzumab 150 1 (1-3) 66 vs 63 37 vs 27 9.7 vs 6.9 (0.72) 
 ENDEAVOR (31) Kd vs Vd 929 1 (1-3) 77 vs 63 54 vs 29 18.7 vs 9.4 (0.53) 

ORR, overall response rate.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal