MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A phase 1 study of belantamab mafodotin in combination with standard of care in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: An interim analysis of DREAMM-9.

2023· article· en· W4379346404 on OpenAlexaff
Michał Mielnik, Ja Min Byun, Aránzazu Alonso Alonso, Al‐Ola Abdallah, Mamta Garg, Hang Quach, Chang‐Ki Min, Wojciech Janowski, Enrique M. Ocio, Katja Weisel, Albert Oriol, Irwindeep Sandhu, Paula Rodríguez‐Otero, Karthik Ramasamy, Jacqueline L. Egger, Danaè Williams, Jie Ma, Morrys C. Kaisermann, Marek Hus

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLenalidomideInterim analysisTolerabilityBortezomibMultiple myelomaAdverse effectInternal medicineDexamethasoneClinical endpointGastroenterologySurgeryClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

8018 Background: Belantamab mafodotin (belamaf) is a B-cell maturation antigen-binding antibody-drug conjugate that eliminates myeloma cells via direct cell killing and anti-myeloma immune responses. DREAMM-9 (NCT04091126) is an ongoing Phase 1, randomized, dose and schedule evaluation study. It aims to evaluate belamaf plus bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) in adult patients (pts) with transplant-ineligible (TI) newly diagnosed MM (NDMM) and to establish the recommended dose for future development of belamaf combination therapies in the 1st-line setting. Herein, we report updated interim-analysis data. Methods: Belamaf dose cohorts (Co1–7) are shown in the Table. VRd was given every 3 weeks (Q3W) until cycle 8, and Rd Q4W thereafter. Following safety data from Co2–5, Co6–7 were opened in parallel (randomized 1:1) and have shorter follow-up (Table). Safety was the primary endpoint; efficacy and tolerability were secondary endpoints. Minimal residual disease (MRD) was assessed by next-generation sequencing (10-5). Results: As of data cutoff (Oct 20, 2022), 93 pts were treated across Co1–7. Median age (range) was 73 (51–88) years, 55% of pts were male, and 84% were white. The most commonly reported non-ocular adverse events (AEs) across all Co were thrombocytopenia (46%), constipation (36%), diarrhea (34%), and peripheral sensory neuropathy (31%). Overall, belamaf-related Grade ≥3 AEs occurred in 35% of pts and led to belamaf dose reductions in 7% and dose delays in 63% of all treated patients. Grade ≥3 ocular AEs (keratopathy and visual acuity [KVA] scale) occurred in 53% of all pts and led to dose reductions in 12% and dose delays in 52% of overall pts. Fatal AEs occurred in 7 pts, all unrelated to study treatment. Efficacy results and ocular AEs are summarized in the Table: 100% of pts responded in Co1 (1.9 mg/kg Q3/4W) and Co3 (1.9 mg/kg Q6/8W). Median time to very good partial response or better (≥VGPR) ranged from 2.1 to 3.1 months (mo) across cohorts. Highest MRD negativity (MRD[-]) rates (≥VGPR) were seen in Co1 (83%) and Co3 (67%). Conclusions: This updated interim analysis demonstrates that belamaf plus VRd has no new safety signals and provides early and deep anti-myeloma responses in pts with TI NDMM, with high MRD[-] rates. Clinical trial information: NCT04091126 . [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)0.006
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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.393 · 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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