ArticleFuture oncology (London, England)2026
Effectiveness of daratumumab plus bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (DVRd) versus VRd for transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.
Article in Future oncology (London, England), 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
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFrontline (1L) treatment for transplant-eligible (TE) newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) has shifted from triplet (e.g. bortezomib [V], lenalidomide [R], dexamethasone [d]) to quadruplet (e.g. daratumumab with VRd [DVRd]) regimens, based on improved efficacy demonstrated in pivotal trials. This real-world study compared progression-free survival (PFS) in TE patients with NDMM treated with DVRd plus DR or R maintenance (DVRd-DR/R) versus VRd plus R maintenance (VRd-R).
methodsAdult TE patients with NDMM who initiated DVRd-DR/R or VRd-R between 1 January 2020 and 30 June 2022 were identified through a retrospective chart review at 10 US sites. PFS was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analyses and propensity score-weighted hazard ratios (HR) were estimated using Cox regression.
resultsOverall, 137 patients received DVRd-DR/R and 86 received VRd-R. Over a median follow-up of 26.7 and 39.8 months among the DVRd-DR/R and VRd-R cohorts, respectively, 11 (9.1%) and 32 (29.7%) patients experienced disease progression or death. Median PFS was not reached in either cohort. DVRd-DR/R versus VRd-R was associated with 63% lower risk of disease progression or death (weighted HR: 0.37, 95% confidence interval: 0.17-0.80,
conclusionFindings aligned with pivotal trials, demonstrating the significant PFS benefit of 1L DVRd over VRd and supporting its real-world use for TE 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.