MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Relationship between corneal exam findings, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and ocular symptoms in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) receiving belantamab mafodotin (belamaf).

2021· article· en· W3168041049 on OpenAlexaff
Evangelos Terpos, Ashraf Badros, Rakesh Popat, Paula Rodríguez‐Otero, Asim V. Farooq, Bennie H. Jeng, Simona Degli Esposti, Eric Lewis, Ira Gupta, Joanna Opalińska, Antonio Palumbo, Suzanne Trudel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersGlaxoSmithKline
KeywordsMedicineOphthalmologyCommon Terminology Criteria for Adverse EventsVisual acuityAdverse effectInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

8033 Background: Belantamab mafodotin (GSK2857916; belamaf; BLENREP) is a B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)-targeting antibody–drug conjugate approved in the US and EU as a monotherapy for the treatment of adult patients with RRMM. Ocular events (OEs) during the pivotal DREAMM-2 trial (NCT03525678) included corneal exam findings (punctate keratopathy and microcyst-like epithelial changes), BCVA changes, and ocular symptoms. Dose reductions or delays based on corneal exam findings and BCVA were used to manage OEs. Here we performed a post hoc investigation of relationships between corneal exam findings, BCVA changes, and patient-reported ocular symptoms to explore if BCVA changes and symptoms could guide dosing, rather than corneal exams. Methods: Eye evaluations (including a corneal exam and BCVA assessment of Snellen visual acuity) were performed on all patients receiving single-agent belamaf (2.5 mg/kg) by ophthalmologists at baseline and prior to each belamaf dose. Changes in the corneal epithelium (Ker) and BCVA were both assessed as per protocol-defined criteria and assessment of grade (Gr) was based on the worse eye. BCVA grading was relative to baseline. Patient-reported ocular symptoms were reported as per the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Results: In 12.5% of eye evaluations Gr 3–4 Ker was associated with minimal or no (Gr ≤1) BCVA changes. When patient-reported ocular symptoms were also considered, only 7.5% of evaluations found Gr 3–4 Ker with Gr ≤1 BCVA changes or ocular symptoms. Mild or no (Gr ≤2) Ker was associated with Gr ≤1 BCVA changes in 59.5% of evaluations, or in 38.8% of evaluations with no ocular symptoms reported. Overall, Gr 3–4 Ker were found in 24.9% of evaluations; by contrast, patients had Gr 2–4 BCVA changes or ocular symptoms in 53.7% of evaluations. Association of corneal epithelium changes (Ker) with BCVA changes and ocular symptoms. Conclusions: These findings highlight that BCVA changes and ocular symptoms should be further investigated to determine if they can be used as alternatives (eg, frequency of eye examinations based on symptoms) for the management of belamaf dosing to potentially reduce the burden on patients and healthcare professionals. Clinical trial information: NCT03525678. [Table: see text]

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.108
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments→French-language works237,207→