This page provides an independent statistical analysis and educational interpretation of publicly reported results. ClinicalTrials.gov provides the official trial registry record. Numerical trial results on this page are restricted to the results posted in the ClinicalTrials.gov record; calculations added by Clinical Biostats are labelled as such.
1. Trial at a Glance
This page covers the registry results for A Study of Daratumumab in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (NCT03290950), a non-randomized phase 2 study. The primary outcome is Best Overall Response.
| Feature | Registry value |
|---|---|
| ClinicalTrials.gov identifier | NCT03290950 |
| Phase | Phase 2 |
| Condition | Multiple Myeloma |
| Allocation | Non-Randomized |
| Design model | Single Group |
| Masking | None (open label) |
| Enrollment | 69 |
| Arms in the primary outcome | n/a |
| Lead sponsor | Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center |
| Results posted | Yes |
2. Clinical Question
Population
Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. The registry record describes two cohorts, but further eligibility details and cohort-specific population definitions are not reported in the registry record.
Intervention
Combination therapy with daratumumab, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone. The cohort descriptions say that patients achieving at least a partial response at the end of 4 cycles would continue toward a planned total of 8 cycles of combination therapy.
Comparator
No separate control group is listed. The study is described as non-randomized and single-group. The cohorts should not be interpreted as a randomized or like-for-like treatment comparison.
Primary question
What best overall response, with measurable residual disease status, is recorded after upfront high-dose therapy with autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation or at the end of induction? The registry record lists this as a participant-count endpoint, but does not report response counts or an analysis.
This study addresses a clinical question about response and safety during a combination regimen in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Its design does not provide a randomized comparison with another treatment or with no treatment. Accordingly, any response recorded in the study would describe outcomes among participants receiving the regimen, rather than isolate the regimen’s effect from other explanations such as the participants’ characteristics, disease course, or subsequent care.
The endpoint also incorporates measurable residual disease status at a specified treatment point. That makes the question broader than whether a participant meets a response category alone: it asks for response information in the context of MRD status after transplantation or at the end of induction. The registry record does not define the response categories, MRD assessment method, or how the two assessment points relate to the reported endpoint. These details are not reported in the registry record.
3. Trial Design
This is a phase II study listed as non-randomized, unmasked, and single-group. Its official title describes a clinical and correlative study of daratumumab, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. The registry record lists two cohorts, each with a description of a single-arm, two-stage phase II trial of the combination. The descriptions are truncated and do not explain how the cohorts differ; that distinction is not reported in the registry record.
The registry record lists enrollment of 69 and an active, not recruiting status. The recorded study start is 2017-09-25, and the primary completion date is 2025-05-21. These are registry entries and do not by themselves establish that follow-up is complete or that the primary endpoint has been analyzed. The primary endpoint timeframe is up to 8 cycles. The cohort descriptions state that patients achieving at least a partial response at the end of 4 cycles would continue toward a planned total of 8 cycles of combination therapy. Further detail about treatment delivery, dose modifications, follow-up, or other treatment after this period is not reported in the registry record.
Because allocation is non-randomized and the model is single-group, the study is not a head-to-head test of the two cohorts. The adverse-event listings are separated by cohort, but the registry record does not establish that the cohorts are comparable or that cohort membership was randomly assigned. Differences between their listed counts therefore cannot be interpreted as treatment effects or as reliable evidence that one cohort had better outcomes.
The record lists the primary outcome as best overall response, with MRD status after upfront high-dose therapy with autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation or at the end of induction. It lists one outcome measure and no analyses. Response counts, cohort-specific endpoint results, and a statistical analysis of the primary endpoint are not reported in the registry record.
4. Participant Flow and Accounting
The registry reports how participants moved through each stage of the study. All counts below are exactly as posted; missing counts are not inferred from other stages.
Overall Study
| Stage | Cohort 1 | Cohort 2 |
|---|---|---|
| STARTED | 28 | 41 |
| COMPLETED | 22 | 37 |
| NOT COMPLETED | 6 | 4 |
Reasons for not completing this period:
| Reason | Cohort 1 | Cohort 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Adverse Event | 1 | 1 |
| Withdrawal by Subject | 3 | 3 |
| Removed due to malignancy | 2 | 0 |
5. Baseline Characteristics
The table reproduces the baseline characteristics posted in the registry, which describe the participants analysed at baseline and help show whether the randomized groups were comparable.
| Characteristic | Unit | Cohort 1 | Cohort 2 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Participants analysed | 28 | 41 | 69 | |
| Age, Continuous | years | 58 (33 to 79) | 59 (30 to 70) | 59 (33 to 79) |
| Sex: Female, Male: Female | Participants | 16 | 25 | 41 |
| Sex: Female, Male: Male | Participants | 12 | 16 | 28 |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB): Hispanic or Latino | Participants | 4 | 4 | 8 |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB): Not Hispanic or Latino | Participants | 20 | 31 | 51 |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB): Unknown or Not Reported | Participants | 4 | 6 | 10 |
| Race (NIH/OMB): American Indian or Alaska Native | Participants | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Race (NIH/OMB): Asian | Participants | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| Race (NIH/OMB): Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | Participants | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| Race (NIH/OMB): Black or African American | Participants | 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Race (NIH/OMB): White | Participants | 22 | 32 | 54 |
| Race (NIH/OMB): More than one race | Participants | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Race (NIH/OMB): Unknown or Not Reported | Participants | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Region of Enrollment: United States | Participants | 28 | 41 | 69 |
6. Primary Endpoint
The registry lists the primary outcome as Best Overall Response, measured over Up to 8 cycles.
| Element | Registry entry |
|---|---|
| Result type | Count Of Participants |
| Measure of spread | not applicable |
| Unit | Participants |
| Endpoint classification | Binary Endpoint |
The primary endpoint is titled “Best Overall Response” and is measured as a count of participants. Its description adds MRD status after upfront high-dose therapy with autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation or at the end of induction. The listed timeframe is up to 8 cycles. The registry record does not provide the actual response counts, a response rate, or an analysis of MRD status.
Best overall response is used in clinical studies to describe the most favorable response category recorded for a participant over a defined assessment period. In general, a response endpoint can convey whether observed disease status changed during treatment, while MRD status can add information about whether disease remains detectable under the specified assessment method. These are general descriptions; the registry record does not define the response categories or MRD method used in this study.
Because the endpoint is a participant count, interpretation depends on knowing both the count and the population to which it applies. The population field is blank, and no endpoint denominators or missing-assessment rules are reported in the registry record. The description also allows assessment after either transplantation or the end of induction, but the record does not say how those assessment contexts were combined or whether their results were reported separately. Without these details and the endpoint results, the registry entry identifies the intended outcome but does not support a quantitative conclusion about response.
7. Why No Re-analysis Is Shown
8. Statistical Interpretation
The record identifies a clinically relevant response endpoint for a combination regimen in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, but it does not report the endpoint’s results. It lists best overall response with MRD status as a participant-count outcome and gives a timeframe of up to 8 cycles. However, no response counts, denominators, confidence intervals, or primary-endpoint analysis are recorded. The analysis count is listed as zero. Consequently, the posted record does not establish the observed response distribution or the precision of any response estimate.
The trial design also limits what can be inferred. The study is non-randomized and described as single-group, with no separate comparator. Even if response results were available, outcomes among participants receiving the combination would not, by themselves, show what would have happened to comparable participants under another treatment. Cohort-specific adverse-event counts do not turn the design into a controlled comparison. The registry record does not explain how cohort membership was determined or establish that cohorts were comparable.
The endpoint description refers to MRD status after transplantation or at the end of induction. Those assessment contexts may represent different points in care, but the registry record does not report how they were handled analytically. It also does not define response criteria, describe the MRD assessment, specify the endpoint population, or explain how incomplete assessments were treated. Those omissions make it difficult to judge how consistently the endpoint could be interpreted across participants.
The safety entries offer descriptive counts, not an estimate of comparative risk. The record lists serious adverse events for Cohort 1 and Cohort 2, as well as other adverse events and deaths. These counts identify recorded events in each listed cohort, but do not establish causation or comparative safety. The registry record does not report event-level participant overlap, timing, severity details beyond the serious-event classification, or attribution to treatment. The listed serious-event terms are percentages, but their denominator and calculation details are not reported in the registry record.
The registry status is active, not recruiting, and the primary completion date is listed as 2025-05-21. A status or date entry does not substitute for an endpoint analysis. Readers should distinguish the planned or registered endpoint from results that have actually been posted. In the absence of reported primary results, this record supports description of the study’s question, structure, and listed safety counts, but not a quantitative efficacy conclusion.
9. Statistical Methods Explained
The statistical information in the registry record is limited. It identifies a binary outcome type and describes the endpoint as a count of participants, but lists no analyses. The endpoint results and their uncertainty are not reported in the registry record. The concepts below explain how such information is commonly interpreted; they do not imply that the study used a particular method unless that method is explicitly listed.
What does a participant count describe?
A participant count states how many people meet a specified outcome definition. To interpret it, readers generally need the corresponding population or denominator, the outcome definition, and the rules for handling participants without an assessment. The primary endpoint is described as best overall response with MRD status, but the population field is blank and the response counts and denominators are not reported in the registry record. Thus, the record does not allow a response proportion to be interpreted or checked.
Counts also depend on what qualifies as an event. For a response outcome, that means knowing the response categories and the criteria used to assign them. The registry record does not report those criteria. It names MRD status but does not report the assessment method or specify how a missing or indeterminate MRD result would be treated. These details matter because different definitions can produce different classifications, even when the participants and their clinical course are the same.
Why does a confidence interval matter?
In general, a confidence interval describes the statistical uncertainty around an estimate. A narrow interval indicates greater precision under the assumptions of the method; a wide interval indicates less precision. An interval is not a guarantee that the true value lies within its limits, and its interpretation depends on the analysis design and assumptions. No confidence interval or endpoint estimate is reported in the registry record, so the precision of the study’s primary result cannot be assessed from this entry.
For a single-group study, a confidence interval around a response proportion could describe uncertainty about the response frequency in the study population. It would not supply the missing counterfactual: the outcome that comparable participants might have had under a different treatment. That distinction is important. Precision about an observed group outcome does not remove confounding or establish a causal treatment effect.
What does the design allow?
Random assignment can help balance known and unknown participant characteristics between treatment groups, on average. This study is listed as non-randomized and single-group, so randomized allocation is not part of its design. No separate comparator is listed. The two cohorts are not a substitute for a randomized control group: their descriptions are both single-arm, and the registry record does not state how cohort membership was assigned or whether their characteristics were similar.
In general, an analysis comparing non-randomized groups can be affected by differences in who entered each group, their disease features, treatment history, or other factors. Adjustment can sometimes account for measured factors, but the registry record does not report an adjusted analysis, covariates, or a statistical plan. The absence of a reported analysis means it would be inappropriate to infer that adjustment or any other method was used.
How should planning illustrations be read?
The study’s sample-size material is described as a planning illustration based on an observed effect, with a two-sided significance level of 0.05, equal allocation between two arms, and a normal approximation. It describes scenarios based on detecting a stated fraction of that effect. These are assumptions for an illustrative design calculation, not the study’s own design: the trial is registered as single-group and non-randomized. Any resulting sample sizes are planning illustrations, not observed power, and they do not show that a result was significant or that a treatment effect was established.
The registry record does not report the primary endpoint analysis or an observed effect estimate. Therefore, the numerical planning outputs and their relationship to a specific endpoint result cannot be evaluated from this record. In general, sample-size calculations depend on the target effect, variability or event frequency, allocation, significance level, and other assumptions. Changing an assumption can change the planning result. These calculations do not compensate for a missing outcome analysis or resolve the limitations of a single-group design.
What does over-dispersion mean in general?
For count outcomes, a statistical model may assume a particular level of variability. Over-dispersion means the observed variation is greater than the model expects. If ignored, standard errors can be too small and confidence intervals too narrow, which can make evidence appear more precise than it is. Whether over-dispersion is relevant depends on the outcome and model. The registry record does not report a count-model analysis or a dispersion assessment for this endpoint, so no such method should be attributed to the study.
Overall, the statistical methods that were actually used for the primary endpoint are not reported in the registry record. The design and endpoint can be described, and general statistical principles can clarify what a complete analysis would need to communicate, but they cannot fill in the absent results or analysis details.
10. Multiplicity, Missing Data and Analysis Populations
The registry record lists one outcome measure and no analyses. It does not report a statistical analysis plan, a hierarchy of endpoints, a multiplicity adjustment, or an approach to selecting among response or MRD assessments. Whether multiple comparisons or repeated assessments were planned is not reported in the registry record. Without those details, it is not possible to determine whether multiplicity was relevant or how it would have been handled.
In general, testing several outcomes or examining results at several time points can increase the chance of finding an apparently notable result by chance. A prespecified hierarchy or an adjustment can address some forms of this issue, but neither should be assumed. The endpoint timeframe is listed as up to 8 cycles, and its description refers to assessment after transplantation or at the end of induction; the record does not explain whether these were combined, analyzed separately, or treated as distinct opportunities for assessment.
Missing-data rules and analysis populations are also not reported in the registry record. The population field for the primary endpoint is blank, and the record does not say how participants without a response or MRD assessment would be classified, whether they would be excluded, or how incomplete follow-up would be addressed. It also does not identify an intention-to-treat population, a per-protocol population, or another analysis set. These choices can affect a participant-count outcome, so the reported endpoint definition alone is not enough to reconstruct an analysis.
These are reporting gaps, not evidence that the study failed to use appropriate methods. The available record does not allow readers to assess the handling of multiplicity, missing observations, or analysis populations.
11. Safety Results
The registry reports serious adverse events as affected participants divided by participants at risk.
| Arm | Participants with serious adverse events | Participants at risk | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cohort 1 | 16 | 28 | 57.1% |
| Cohort 2 | 14 | 41 | 34.1% |
Deaths
| Arm | Deaths (participants affected of at risk) |
|---|---|
| Cohort 1 | 5 of 28 |
| Cohort 2 | 5 of 41 |
Other (non-serious) adverse events
Participants with at least one non-serious event at or above the registry's 0% reporting threshold.
| Arm | Participants affected of at risk |
|---|---|
| Cohort 1 | 28 of 28 |
| Cohort 2 | 35 of 41 |
Most frequent serious adverse event terms
| Event term | Organ system | Cohort 1 | Cohort 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fever | General disorders | 1 of 28 | 3 of 41 |
| Lung infection | Infections and infestations | 0 of 28 | 4 of 41 |
| Febrile neutropenia | Blood and lymphatic system disorders | 2 of 28 | 1 of 41 |
| Constipation | Gastrointestinal disorders | 1 of 28 | 1 of 41 |
| Back pain | Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders | 2 of 28 | 0 of 41 |
| Sepsis | Infections and infestations | 2 of 28 | 0 of 41 |
| Acute kidney injury | Renal and urinary disorders | 1 of 28 | 1 of 41 |
| Dyspnea | Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders | 1 of 28 | 1 of 41 |
| Pain | General disorders | 1 of 28 | 1 of 41 |
| Vasovagal reaction | Nervous system disorders | 1 of 28 | 0 of 41 |
Most frequent non-serious adverse event terms
| Event term | Organ system | Cohort 1 | Cohort 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diarrhea | Gastrointestinal disorders | 15 of 28 | 26 of 41 |
| Fatigue | General disorders | 19 of 28 | 20 of 41 |
| Constipation | Gastrointestinal disorders | 15 of 28 | 23 of 41 |
| Rash maculo-papular | Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders | 12 of 28 | 18 of 41 |
| Insomnia | Psychiatric disorders | 9 of 28 | 20 of 41 |
| Upper respiratory infection | Infections and infestations | 10 of 28 | 17 of 41 |
| Fever | General disorders | 12 of 28 | 12 of 41 |
| Neutrophil count decreased | Investigations | 6 of 28 | 17 of 41 |
| Cough | Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders | 12 of 28 | 9 of 41 |
| Anemia | Blood and lymphatic system disorders | 9 of 28 | 11 of 41 |
Serious events with the highest arm-level rate: lung infection (9.8%), fever (7.3%), back pain (7.1%), sepsis (7.1%), febrile neutropenia (7.1%).
The registry record lists serious adverse events by cohort. For Cohort 1, 16 participants are listed as affected among 28 at risk; for Cohort 2, 14 are listed as affected among 41 at risk. Other adverse events are listed as affecting 28 among 28 at risk in Cohort 1 and 35 among 41 at risk in Cohort 2. Deaths are listed as 5 in each cohort. These are descriptive registry counts, not evidence that the cohorts had comparable safety follow-up or were comparable in other respects.
The most frequent serious adverse-event terms listed are lung infection at 9.8%, fever at 7.3%, back pain at 7.1%, sepsis at 7.1%, febrile neutropenia at 7.1%, and vasovagal reaction at 3.6%. The denominator and calculation details for these percentages are not reported in the registry record. The record also does not establish whether participants could contribute more than one event term, so the percentages should not be added or treated as a total.
“Affected” counts describe participants recorded with an event, whereas event-term percentages describe listed terms. The registry record does not report timing, treatment attribution, or whether the deaths were related to the study regimen. The counts therefore identify reported safety information but do not establish causation or a comparative safety effect.
12. What the Result Does, and Does Not, Mean
The primary endpoint identifies what the study intended to measure: best overall response with MRD status after upfront high-dose therapy with autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation or at the end of induction. The registry record also identifies the regimen, population, and broad study design. It does not report response counts or an analysis of the primary endpoint. As a result, the record does not provide a quantitative estimate of the response observed in the study.
Even with a complete response count, a single-group result would describe the experience of participants receiving the combination, not what would have happened to similar participants under a different treatment. Without a randomized comparator, differences in participant characteristics, disease course, and other factors could contribute to observed outcomes. The registry record does not support a causal comparison between the cohorts, either.
The safety listings indicate that serious and other adverse events, and deaths, were recorded in both cohorts. They do not show that the regimen caused each event, and the record does not establish comparative risks. The serious-event term percentages also lack reported denominator details. The counts should be read as registry descriptions rather than as a complete assessment of treatment-related safety.
The record’s status and date entries describe the study’s registry history, not the completeness or interpretation of its results. It is listed as active, not recruiting, with a primary completion date of 2025-05-21. No primary analysis is listed. Details about the endpoint population, response criteria, MRD assessment, missing data, and analysis methods are not reported in the registry record. Those omissions limit assessment of both the result and its precision.
In short, the registry record describes a phase II single-group study and its intended response endpoint, but does not provide the endpoint findings needed to judge the observed response. It supports neither a conclusion of benefit nor a conclusion of no benefit. It also cannot establish comparative safety or explain whether the observed events were caused by treatment.
13. Why This Trial Matters Statistically
Statistically, the record illustrates why a clearly named endpoint is only the starting point for interpreting a trial. Best overall response with MRD status identifies a topic of interest, but meaningful interpretation also requires the observed counts, the population assessed, operational definitions, and an account of uncertainty. Those result and analysis details are not reported in the registry record.
The design is equally important. A non-randomized, single-group phase II study can describe participant outcomes during a regimen and can contribute information about feasibility and observed safety. It does not, on its own, separate the regimen’s effect from other influences on outcomes. This distinction remains important even when a response endpoint appears clinically relevant or when cohort-level counts are available.
The safety entries also demonstrate why counts need context. At-risk and affected counts are listed by cohort, while serious-event terms are presented as percentages without a reported denominator. Event attribution and timing are not reported. Without those details, the entries cannot be used as a complete comparative safety analysis.
Finally, the planning assumptions should not be confused with the trial’s actual design or results. The record describes illustrative calculations using equal allocation between two arms, whereas the study itself is registered as single-group and non-randomized. Planning calculations address hypothetical design properties; they are not observed evidence and cannot replace the missing endpoint analysis. Keeping these distinctions clear helps prevent a study description, a safety listing, or a design illustration from being mistaken for a treatment-effect estimate.
14. Limitations
- The posted summary statistics are the only data these results rest on; patient-level data, full protocols and statistical analysis plans are not available.
- Recalculated results are simple, unadjusted calculations from posted summaries. They do not replace the sponsor's prespecified analysis.
Several limitations are specific to the information recorded for this study. The primary endpoint is named, but the registry record does not report response counts, denominators, estimates, confidence intervals, or an analysis. Although the record lists one outcome measure, its population field is blank. This prevents readers from identifying the precise endpoint analysis population.
The endpoint description allows MRD assessment after upfront high-dose therapy with autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation or at the end of induction. The record does not report how those assessment contexts were combined, whether results were separated, or how the MRD assessment was performed. It also does not define response categories or address incomplete assessments. These omissions make the endpoint difficult to reproduce or interpret in detail.
The two cohort descriptions are truncated and do not explain how the cohorts differ or how participants entered them. The study is explicitly non-randomized and single-group, so cohort-specific counts are not a randomized comparison. The record does not report adjustment for potential differences between cohorts.
Safety reporting has additional limits. The at-risk and affected counts are listed, along with deaths, but the record does not report treatment attribution or event timing. The denominator and calculation details for the serious-event term percentages are not reported in the registry record. The event listings therefore cannot establish causation or comparative risk.
Finally, no analysis is listed, and statistical-plan details, missing-data rules, and analysis populations are not reported. These gaps limit assessment of how the primary endpoint would be analyzed and how precise any result might be. They are limitations of the available registry record and should not be taken as proof that the study did not collect or analyze additional information.
15. Related Tutorials
16. Related Statistical Calculators
17. Sources
- ClinicalTrials.gov: A Study of Daratumumab in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma — NCT03290950.
- Registry record last updated 2026-05-29; status last verified 2025-12.
- Results first posted 2026-05-29.
- Data retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov on 2026-11-09.
- Group sizes, means, event counts and sponsor-reported p-values are reproduced as posted. Effect estimates, confidence intervals and p-values not attributed to the sponsor are independently calculated from the posted summary statistics.
Continue through the Clinical Biostats statistical pathway
Use this trial's endpoint as a starting point for deeper study of effect measures, confidence intervals, and sample-size planning.
18. Record Summary
The registry record describes a phase II, non-randomized, unmasked, single-group study of daratumumab, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. It lists two cohorts and enrollment of 69. The primary endpoint is best overall response with MRD status after transplantation or at the end of induction, within a timeframe of up to 8 cycles.
The study is listed as active, not recruiting, with a primary completion date of 2025-05-21. No primary endpoint analysis or response results are reported. Safety counts are listed by cohort, with serious adverse-event terms also presented as percentages; the percentage denominators are not reported in the registry record.
The available information supports a description of the study design, intended endpoint, and posted safety entries. It does not support a quantitative interpretation of response, a causal treatment-effect conclusion, or a comparative safety conclusion.