MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4389219865 · doi:10.1182/blood-2023-174993

Prevention of Ocular Toxicity Using Protective Contact Lenses in Multiple Myeloma Patients Receiving Belantamab Mafodotin, Pomalidomide and Dexamethasone: A Sub-Study of the Cmrg-007 Trial

2023· article· en· W4389219865 on OpenAlexaff
Martha Louzada, Donna Reece, Arleigh McCurdy, Rami Kotb, Ibraheem Othman, Hira Mian, Toni E. Lin, Michael P. Chu, Darrell White, Stephen Parkin, Engin Gul, Aniba Khan, Suzanne Trudel

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityWestern UniversityAlberta HealthOttawa HospitalAlberta Health ServicesLondon Health Sciences CentreMcMaster UniversityVancouver General HospitalHealth Sciences CentreCancerCare Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLenalidomideDexamethasonePomalidomideTolerabilityAdverse effectMultiple myelomaInternal medicineContact lensRefractory (planetary science)SurgeryOphthalmology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Belantamab mafodotin (belamaf) is a monomethyl auristatin-F containing antibody drug conjugate that targets BMCA on myeloma cells. Single agent belamaf has shown clinical meaningful activity in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) but ocular adverse events (AEs) affect 53-72% of trials'participants. In DREAMM-2, prophylactic corticosteroid eye drops did not effectively reduce the risk of keratopathy. It is therefore imperative that strategies to mitigate corneal AEs be explored. This 2-part study is designed to evaluate belamaf and pomalidomide/dexamethasone (Pd) in RRMM. Here we report the efficacy and ocular AEs of patients (pts) receiving 2.5 mg/kg (maximum tolerated dose) or 1.92 mg/kg IV belamaf and administrated on various schedules aimed to define the optimal balance of efficacy and tolerability. We also present results of an ocular sub-study exploring the use of bandage contact lens (BCLs) to reduce the risk and severity of belamaf-associated ocular AEs. Methods: Eligibility: > 1 prior lines of therapy (LoT), lenalidomide, proteasome inhibitors exposed, and refractory to the last LoT. Pd was administered per standard of care and belamaf (1.92 or 2.5 mg/kg) Q4W or 2.5 mg/kg Q8W, Q12W or SPLIT equally on days 1 and 8, Q4W. Pts enrolled on the ocular sub-study received the recommended part two dose (RP2D): 2.5 mg /kg Q8W. A BCL (Bausch and Lomb Pure Vision) was placed in the right (R) eye for the 1st 2 doses of belamaf with the left (L) eye serving as control. Subsequently, BCLs were placed in both eyes. Pts wore BCLs for up to 28 days after each belamaf dose. Evaluation by an eyecare specialist for a comprehensive eye exam and BCL placement occurred every 15-28 days during BCLs use and prior to each belamaf dose. Corneal findings were graded (Gr) by the keratopathy and visual acuity (KVA) scale and findings of local infection were reported. Keratitis prophylaxis during BCLs use included gatifloxacin 0.3% or tobramycin 1.3% eye drops. Results: This analysis comprises 92 pts including 14 on the ocular sub-study. Baseline best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and ocular comorbidities were similar across all cohorts: with median 20/20 BCVA 46.7% R and 50% L eye. Abnormal fundoscopy was 21.7% in R and 16.3% in L eye. There was a trend to lower incidence and less severity of ocular AEs for the 1.92 mg/kg dose (Table 1). Gr 3-4 keratopathy, decrease in BCVA and subjective Gr >2 blurred vision by CTCAE were 33.3% (4/12), 41.7% (5/12) and 25% (3/12) for the 1.92 mg/kg and 75% (9/12), 75% (9/12) and 33.3% (4/12) for 2.5 mg/kg Q4W cohorts. Preliminary data indicated superior clinical efficacy (ORR, >VGPR rate and mPFS) for the 2.5 mg/kg dose, 100% (12/12), 91.7% (11/12) and 25.1 months (11.8-NYR) versus 66.7% (8/12), 63.6% (7/12) and 16.9 months (5.3-19.7) for the 1.92 mg/kg dose (Table 2). To preserve efficacy but reduce ocular AEs additional cohorts exploring 2.5 mg/kg dosed every 8 and 12 weeks were included. Extended dosing schedules showed lower rates of Gr 3-4 keratopathy, decrease in BCVA, and Gr ≥2 blurred vision: 58.3% (7/12), 91.7% (11/12) and 16.7% (2/12) of pts treated Q8W; and 58.3%, 58.3% and 16.7% (2/12) of pts treated Q12W versus the Q4W schedule. Importantly, the efficacy was preserved with ORRs of 91.7% (11/12) and 100% (11/11), >VGPR rates of 83.3% (10/12) and 63.6% (7/11) and mPFS of 18.3 months (95% CI: 10.1-NYR) and 22.5 (95% CI: 8.9-NYR) for Q8W and Q12W groups, respectively. In the ocular sub-study, assessment of R and L eye during the first 2 belamaf doses showed a significant delay in onset of BCVA decrease in the R eye (p<0.0001) compared to the L. Comparing pts treated at the RP2D, moderate to severe (Gr ≥2) keratopathy and decrease BCVA were significantly lower (p=0.0004 and 0.010), in the BCL cohort versus no-BCL group. Further there was a trend towards less symptomatic blurred vision (p=0.256). BCL pts were able to complete 90% of the pre-planned belamaf cycles compared to 70% in the RP2D no-BCL group (p=0.029). No cases of infectious keratitis were reported in the BCL cohort. Conclusions: Our data suggest that extended dosing intervals may be a significant step forward in mitigating corneal AEs of belamaf. This preliminary report on the efficacy of BCLs in 14 pts demonstrates a decrease in moderate to severe corneal AEs and reduction in dose holds for corneal AEs, noting however a short follow up at this time. The data support the further evaluation of BCLs in preventing belamaf associated ocular toxicities.

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)0.001
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 score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments→French-language works237,207→