Trial reportBlood advances2026
Daratumumab in transplant-ineligible or -deferred newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: minimal residual disease in CEPHEUS.
Trial report in Blood advances, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03652064 (A Phase 3 Study Comparing Daratumumab, VELCADE), which is not on this 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.
A Phase 3 Study Comparing Daratumumab, VELCADE (Bortezomib), Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone (D-VRd) With VELCADE, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone (VRd) in Subjects With Untreated Multiple Myeloma and for Whom Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant is Not Planned as Initial Therapy
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
30 authors.
Funding
Abstract
abstractIn the phase 3 CEPHEUS study, D-VRd (daratumumab/bortezomib/lenalidomide/dexamethasone) increased overall minimal residual disease (MRD)-negativity rates vs VRd in patients who were transplant ineligible/deferred with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). We present an expanded MRD analysis of CEPHEUS. Patients who were transplant-ineligible or deferred transplant as initial therapy were randomized to D-VRd or VRd. Overall MRD negativity (next-generation sequencing) was defined as the proportion of patients achieving complete response or better and MRD-negative status assessed at 10-5 (primary end point) and 10-6 thresholds. In total, 395 patients were randomized (D-VRd, n = 197; VRd, n = 198). With 58.7-months median follow-up, overall MRD-negativity rates were significantly higher with D-VRd vs VRd (10-5: 60.9% vs 39.4%; odds ratio [OR], 2.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.58-3.55; P< .0001; 10-6: 46.2% vs 27.3%; OR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.48-3.40; P = .0001). Sustained MRD negativity (≥12 months) was significantly higher with D-VRd vs VRd (10-5: 49.2% vs 27.3%; 10-6: 34.0% vs 16.2%; each P< .0001), with similar benefits at ≥24 and ≥36 months. MRD-negativity rates were higher at all prespecified time points and cumulatively with D-VRd. Among patients who achieved MRD negativity, progression-free survival (PFS) trended in favor of D-VRd vs VRd (10-5: hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.35-1.06; P = .0755; 10-6: 0.66; 95% CI, 0.31-1.41; P = .2811). Responses with D-VRd were deeper and more durable vs VRd, with increased overall, sustained, and landmark MRD-negativity rates, translating into improved overall PFS with D-VRd vs VRd (intent-to-treat), with potential to improve PFS even among patients with MRD negativity. D-VRd is therefore a new standard-of-care treatment for transplant-ineligible/transplant-deferred NDMM. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03652064.
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.