Long-term responders from the Phase 3 dreamm-7 study of belantamab mafodotin plus bortezomib and dexamethasone vs daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone in Relapsed/Refractory multiple myeloma
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction: In the phase 3, open-label, randomized DREAMM-7 trial (NCT04246047) in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who had ≥1 prior line of treatment, belantamab mafodotin, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (BVd) led to statistically significant and clinically meaningful progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) benefit vs daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (DVd), as well as deep and durable responses after extended follow-up (data cutoff: October 7, 2024; median follow-up, 39.4 months in the intention-to-treat population). This post hoc analysis was conducted to further investigate the characteristics of and outcomes in pts achieving sustained clinical benefit with BVd (ie, long-term responders [LTRs]). Methods: As previously reported,pts were randomized 1:1 to BVd or DVd. Pts were treated until disease progression, death, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or loss to follow-up, whichever occurred first. The primary endpoint was PFS; key secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, and OS. Other secondary endpoints included response rates, PFS2, and safety. LTRs were defined as pts who had PFS ≥36 months. The last pt was randomized on June 28, 2021; with a data cutoff of October 7, 2024, all pts remaining on study have been on for >3 years. Results: Of 494 pts in DREAMM-7 (BVd, n=243; DVd, n=251), 125 were LTRs; the BVd arm had approximately twice as many LTRs (n=78 [32%]) as the DVd arm (n=47 [19%]). While baseline characteristics between treatment arms were generally well balanced, LTRs had slightly different baseline characteristics compared with non-LTRs. While all LTRs had Revised International Staging System (R-ISS) stage I or II disease, non-LTRs included a small number of pts with R-ISS stage III disease (n=23 [6%]). Non-LTRs had a 7% higher rate of extramedullary disease vs LTRs. LTRs had fewer prior lines of therapy vs non-LTRs, with 83% vs 71% having 1 or 2 prior lines of therapy, respectively. High-risk cytogenetics were balanced between LTRs and non-LTRs; however, 1q21 amplification was more common in non-LTRs (39%) vs LTRs (24%). In BVd-treated LTRs, median PFS, DOR, PFS2, and OS were not reached (NR). In DVd-treated LTRs, median PFS was 49 months (95% CI, not evaluable [NE]-NE) and median DOR was 48 months (95% CI, NE-NE); median PFS2 and OS were both NR. While all LTRs had a response, LTRs treated with BVd vs DVd had deeper responses: 72% vs 57% had complete response or better (≥ CR), 96% vs 92% had very good partial response or better (≥ VGPR), 54% vs 40% had MRD negativity plus ≥ CR (75% vs 70% of pts with ≥ CR), and 71% vs 53% had MRD negativity plus ≥ VGPR (73% vs 58% of pts with ≥ VGPR), respectively. The safety profile in LTRs who received long-term treatment was consistent with that previously reported. Conclusions: BVd-treated LTRs had higher rates of ≥ CR and MRD negativity than DVd-treated LTRs, which corresponded with BVd-treated LTRs having longer PFS and more durable responses compared with DVd-treated LTRs. Together, these results further support that deeper responses with BVd resulted in prolonged remission. The safety profile in LTRs was consistent with that previously reported. Funding statement: GSK (Study ID: 207503).Drug-linker technology licensed from Seagen Inc; monoclonal antibody produced using POTELLIGENT Technology licensed from BioWa.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».