% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Baertsch:166717,
      author       = {M.-A. Baertsch and E. K. Mai and T. Hielscher$^*$ and U.
                      Bertsch and H. J. Salwender and M. Munder and S. Fuhrmann
                      and U. Dührsen and P. Brossart and K. Neben and J.
                      Schlenzka and C. Kunz and M. S. Raab and J. Hillengaß and
                      A. Jauch and A. Seckinger and D. Hose and S. Luntz and P.
                      Sonneveld and H. Lokhorst and H. Martin and M. Goerner and
                      M. Hoffmann and H.-W. Lindemann and H. Bernhard and I. W.
                      Blau and C. Scheid and B. Besemer and K. C. Weisel and M.
                      Hänel and J. Dürig and H. Goldschmidt},
      collaboration = {G. M. M. Group},
      title        = {{L}enalidomide versus bortezomib maintenance after
                      frontline autologous stem cell transplantation for multiple
                      myeloma.},
      journal      = {Blood cancer journal},
      volume       = {11},
      number       = {1},
      issn         = {2044-5385},
      address      = {London [u.a.]},
      publisher    = {Nature Publishing Group},
      reportid     = {DKFZ-2021-00064},
      pages        = {1},
      year         = {2021},
      abstract     = {Lenalidomide (LEN) maintenance (MT) post autologous stem
                      cell transplantation (ASCT) is standard of care in newly
                      diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) but has not been compared to
                      other agents in clinical trials. We retrospectively compared
                      bortezomib (BTZ; n = 138) or LEN (n = 183) MT from two
                      subsequent GMMG phase III trials. All patients received
                      three cycles of BTZ-based triplet induction and post-ASCT
                      MT. BTZ MT (1.3 mg/m2 i.v.) was administered every 2 weeks
                      for 2 years. LEN MT included two consolidation cycles (25 mg
                      p.o., days 1-21 of 28 day cycles) followed by 10-15 mg/day
                      for 2 years. The BTZ cohort more frequently received tandem
                      ASCT $(91\%$ vs. $33\%)$ due to different tandem ASCT
                      strategies. In the LEN and BTZ cohort, $43\%$ and $46\%$ of
                      patients completed 2 years of MT as intended (p = 0.57).
                      Progression-free survival (PFS; HR = 0.83, p = 0.18) and
                      overall survival (OS; HR = 0.70, p = 0.15) did not differ
                      significantly with LEN vs. BTZ MT. Patients with <nCR after
                      first ASCT were assigned tandem ASCT in both trials. In
                      patients with <nCR and tandem ASCT (LEN: n = 54 vs. BTZ: n =
                      84), LEN MT significantly improved PFS (HR = 0.61, p = 0.04)
                      but not OS (HR = 0.46, p = 0.09). In conclusion, the
                      significant PFS benefit after eliminating the impact of
                      different tandem ASCT rates supports the current standard of
                      LEN MT after ASCT.},
      cin          = {C060},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-He78)C060-20160331},
      pnm          = {313 - Krebsrisikofaktoren und Prävention (POF4-313)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-313},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:33414374},
      doi          = {10.1038/s41408-020-00390-3},
      url          = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/166717},
}