Trial reportInternational journal of hematology2026
Daratumumab plus VRd in Japanese transplant-ineligible/deferred NDMM patients: Japanese subgroup of the CEPHEUS trial.
Trial report in International journal of hematology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The phase 3 CEPHEUS trial was conducted in 13 countries starting December 11, 2018 in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) who were transplant-ineligible or for whom transplantation was not planned as initial therapy. Bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) with daratumumab (D-VRd) provided deeper, more durable responses and lowered the risk of disease progression or death compared with VRd. This analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of D-VRd specifically in the Japanese subpopulation of the CEPHEUS trial (D-VRd: n = 9; VRd: n = 13). At a median follow-up of 59.0 months, the overall minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rate was 77.8% with D-VRd and 46.2% with VRd (odds ratio: 4.08 [95% confidence interval: 0.60, 27.65]). The complete response or better rate was 88.9% with D-VRd and 76.9% with VRd. Median progression-free survival was not reached in either group, with a hazard ratio of 0.34 favoring D-VRd. The sustained (≥ 12 months) MRD negativity rate was 55.6% with D-VRd and 38.5% with VRd. Efficacy and safety results were similar to those observed in the global CEPHEUS population, supporting the use of D-VRd in Japanese patients with NDMM.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.