MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4405045412 · doi:10.1182/blood-2024-198669

Phase I Study of Belantamab Mafodotin in Combination with Standard of Care in Transplant-Ineligible Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: Dreamm-9 Updated Interim Analysis

2024· article· en· W4405045412 sur OpenAlexaff
Saad Z. Usmani, Michał Mielnik, Mamta Garg, Irwindeep Sandhu, Al‐Ola Abdallah, Youngil Koh, Albert Oriol, Hang Quach, Katja Weisel, Aránzazu Alonso, Enrique M. Ocio, Wojciech Janowski, Chang‐Ki Min, Karthik Ramasamy, Ricarda García Sánchez, Paula Rodríguez‐Otero, Chris Brawley, Jacqueline L. Egger, Morrys C. Kaisermann, Marek Hus

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Alberta
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésTolerabilityMedicineLenalidomideMultiple myelomaInterim analysisAdverse effectClinical endpointInternal medicineBortezomibData monitoring committeeOncologySurgeryUrologyClinical trial

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction DREAMM-9 (NCT04091126) is an ongoing randomized Phase 1 dose optimization study evaluating belantamab mafodotin (belamaf) plus bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) in autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT)-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (TI NDMM). A previous interim analysis reported no unexpected safety signals and early and deep anti-myeloma responses (Usmani et al. JCO, 2023). Here we report data on all cohorts explored in the trial in the TI NDMM setting. Methods Patients (pts) ≥18 years (yrs) ineligible for ASCT and with no prior MM treatment were dosed in one of 8 cohorts (C1-8) with differing belamaf doses (mg/kg) and schedules and follow-up: C1, 1.9 Q3/4W (N=12); C2, 1.9 Q6/8W (N=12); C3, 1.4 Q3/4W (N=13); C4, 1.4 Q6/8W (N=12); C5, 1.9 for 1 dose and then 1.4 Q9/12W (N=19); C6, 1.0 Q3/4W (N=15); C7, 1.4 for 1 dose and then 1.0 Q9/12W (N=15); C8, 1.0 Q12W (N=10). Cohorts with lower doses and longer schedules were opened to inform on the potential to improve tolerability while maintaining efficacy. All cohorts received belamaf with standard VRd for Cycles 1‒8 (21-day cycle), followed by Rd for Cycles 9+ (28-day cycle). Primary endpoint was safety/tolerability (dose-limiting toxicities [DLTs] and adverse events [AEs]). Efficacy endpoints included overall response rate (ORR, % of pts with a confirmed partial response or better); complete response rate (CRR, % of pts with a complete response or better [CR+]); and minimal residual disease negativity rate (MRD[-], % of pts with very good partial response or better [VGPR+] and reached MRD negativity at 10-5 threshold by next generation sequencing). Responses were assessed per International Myeloma Working Group criteria (2016). Results As of Mar 4, 2024, 108 pts were treated in 8 cohorts. Median age (range) was 74.0 (51‒88) yrs; 44% (n=47) were ≥75 yrs old, 86% were White, and 46% female. Overall duration of follow-up ranged from 0.1-49.8 months, and by cohort (months, interquartile range) was: C1, 37.6 (21.9‒43.1); C2, 32.3 (31.4‒33.4); C3, 20.2 (14.0‒33.0); C4, 32.4 (18.8‒33.6); C5, 17.1 (2.8‒20.3); C6, 31.0 (16.3‒33.4); C7, 18.2 (8.7‒20.6); C8, 7.8 (7.0‒8.7). Of the pts who received ≥1 dose of belamaf, 100% (n=105) experienced AEs. Grade 3+ (Gr3+) belamaf-related AEs ranged from 67% (n=8) for C1 to 10% (n=1) for C8. Ocular events (Gr3+) based on keratopathy and visual acuity scale (KVA) were reported in 55% (n=58) of pts across cohorts; dose interruptions/delays were seen in 95% (n=55) and dose reductions in 33% (n=19) of affected pts. Cohorts 1-3 had the highest proportion of pts with Gr3+ KVA events (% [n]): C1, 83 (10); C2, 92 (11); C3, 85 (11), while the lowest was reported for C7, 7 (1) and C8, 20 (2). The most common non-ocular Gr3+ AEs (% [n]) across all cohorts were thrombocytopenia, 30 (32), neutropenia, 26 (27), and COVID-19 pneumonia, 14 (15). A total of 28 pts (27%) had a decrease in best correct visual acuity (BCVA) score from baseline (20/25 or better) to 20/50 or worse, with a median (range) time of 194 (42-713) days to onset of the first occurrence, of which 89% (n=25) resolved in a median (range) of 85 (22-421) days. The longest median time to onset was reported for the cohorts with the longer dosing intervals (days [n]): C7 (Q9/12W), 337 (1); C4 (Q6/8W), 263.5 (6); C2 (Q6/8W), 245.5 (6). The shortest median time to onset was 76 days for C1 (Q3/4W). Across the cohorts ORR (% [range]) was 90 (71-100); CRR (% [range]) was 63 (30-92) and median time to VGPR+ ranged from 2.1‒3.2 months. ORR % (CRR %) by cohort was C1, 100 (75); C2, 100 (92); C3, 92 (62); C4, 100 (91); C5, 71 (41); C6, 86 (71); C7, 87 (53); C8, 100 (30). MRD[-] rate in pts with VGPR+ ranged from 10% (C8) to 83% (C1). MRD[-] rate in pts with CR+ ranged from 0% (C8) to 75% (C1) and was highest in (% [n]): C1, 75 (9); C2, 67 (8), and C3, 54 (7). Conclusions These results show that belamaf plus VRd in patients with TI NDMM delivered highly effective tumor responses across all dosing schedules. Regardless of dosing interval, higher belamaf doses were associated with higher rates of MRD negativity. Longer dosing intervals were associated with fewer ocular events and increased time to onset of clinically meaningful BCVA changes; follow-up is ongoing. Across the cohorts, ocular events were effectively managed with dose holds/reductions maintaining patients on treatment. These data are consistent with prior clinical studies of belamaf in the relapsed/refractory setting.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai non randomisé · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,005
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,026

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,003
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0020,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,015
Tête enseignante GPT0,316
Écart entre enseignants0,301 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeEssai non randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations10
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetMultiple Myeloma Research and TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207