MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Safety and clinical activity of belantamab mafodotin with pembrolizumab in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM): DREAMM-4 Study.

2022· article· en· W4281719370 on OpenAlexaff
Attaya Suvannasankha, Nizar J. Bahlis, Suzanne Trudel, Katja Weisel, Christian Koenecke, Albert Oriol Rocafiguera, Peter M. Voorhees, Aránzazu Alonso Alonso, Natalie S. Callander, María‐Victoria Mateos, Nishitha Reddy, Shawn Hakim, Nashita Patel, Danaè Williams, Roxanne C. Jewell, Xiangdong Zhou, Ira Gupta, Ajay K. Nooka

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreInstitute of Cancer ResearchUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePembrolizumabInternal medicineAdverse effectMultiple myelomaClinical endpointOncologyExpanded accessLenalidomidePhases of clinical researchDiscontinuationClinical trialSurgeryGastroenterologyImmunotherapyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

8018 Background: Belantamab mafodotin (belamaf; BLENREP), a B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) targeted antibody–drug conjugate approved for adult patients with RRMM, has a multimodal mechanism that eliminates myeloma cells via direct cytotoxicity and a systemic anti-tumor immune response, which may be augmented by an immune checkpoint inhibitor. DREAMM-4 (NCT03848845) assessed safety and clinical activity of belamaf with pembrolizumab (pembro) in RRMM. Methods: This was a Phase I/II, single-arm, open-label study of adults with RRMM after ≥3 lines of therapy (LOT, including anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, proteasome inhibitor, and immunomodulator). Part 1 established the dose of belamaf 2.5 mg/kg with pembro 200 mg, both IV Q3W up to 35 cycles, for the Part 2 expansion. Primary efficacy endpoint was investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR, ≥partial response [PR] per IMWG criteria by investigator). Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events (AEs) per NCI-CTCAE v4.03, and pharmacokinetics (PK). Results: This primary analysis of all treated pts (as of Oct 18, 2021) included 34 pts (6 in Part 1 and 28 in Part 2). In both parts, median prior LOT was 5 (range 3–13); 10 pts (29%) had high-risk cytogenetics and 9 (26%) had extramedullary disease. ORR was 47%, with most responses (10/16 pts) ≥ very good PR (VGPR, Table). Median follow-up was 14.7 months (mo); median (95% CI) DoR was 8.0 (2.1–not reached) mo; median PFS was 3.4 (1.4–5.6) mo. Most pts had ≥1 AE (any grade [Gr]: 97%; Gr ≥3: 74%) and treatment-related AE (TRAE, any Gr: 97%; Gr ≥3: 65%). Most common (≥35%) AEs were keratopathy (any Gr: 76%; Gr ≥3: 38%), vision blurred (any Gr: 38%; Gr ≥3: 0%), and thrombocytopenia (any Gr: 35%; Gr ≥3: 29%). AEs led to dose delays (65%) and dose reductions (32%), but not discontinuation. Nine pts had a serious AE (SAE); 4 pts had ≥1 SAE related to study treatment. Two pts had immune-related AEs of Gr 1 (gout and autoimmune hypothyroidism). Preliminary PK and soluble BCMA data were consistent with single-agent belamaf therapy. Conclusions: Belamaf + pembro demonstrated a favorable ORR compared with single-agent belamaf in heavily pre-treated RRMM. No new TRAEs were identified; AE frequency and severity were similar to single-agent belamaf. Correlative biomarker studies are ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT03848845. [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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.354 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicMultiple Myeloma Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207