Efficacy Outcomes By Minimal Residual Disease (MRD) Negativity in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma Treated with Belantamab Mafodotin Plus Bortezomib and Dexamethasone Vs Daratumumab, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone: Analysis from the Dreamm-7 Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In DREAMM-7 (NCT04246047), belantamab mafodotin (belamaf) plus bortezomib and dexamethasone (BVd) demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful progression-free survival (PFS) benefit vs the standard-of-care triplet daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (DVd) in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who had received ≥1 prior line of treatment. MRD negativity has been shown to be a predictor of PFS and overall survival (OS) in multiple myeloma. Here, we aimed to understand if MRD negativity translated to improvements in PFS and OS in the DREAMM-7 trial. Methods: In DREAMM-7,patients with ≥1 prior line of treatment were randomized (1:1) to BVd or DVd. The primary endpoint was independent review committee (IRC)-assessed PFS. OS and aMRD negative status by next-generation sequencing with 10-5 sensitivity; follow-up testing was performed every 6 months thereafter until progressive disease. An exploratory MRD analysis was also performed in patients who achieved a very good partial response or better (≥VGPR). Post hoc subgroup analyses of PFS (IRC assessed) and OS were performed based on IRC-assessed response (≥CR or ≥ VGPR) and MRD- negative status and evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method; CIs were estimated using the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. Results: In total, 494 patients (BVd, n=243; DVd, n=251) were randomized in the intention-to-treat population. As previously reported, at the first interim analysis (data cutoff: October 2, 2023; median follow-up, 28.2 months), a higher proportion of patients in the BVd arm had CR-based MRD-negative status vs the DVd arm (60 of 243 [25%] vs 24 of 251 [10%] patients). A higher proportion of patients achieved sustained MRD negativity for ≥12 months (≥CR) with BVd (10%) vs DVd (2%) by the data cutoff. Rates of CR-based MRD negativity favored BVd vs DVd in prespecified subgroups of patients with disease refractory to lenalidomide (25% vs 6%) and patients with ≥1 high-risk cytogenetic abnormality (31% vs 7%); this is consistent with findings from the intention-to-treat analysis. A similar trend was observed in an exploratory analysis of patients with ≥VGPR, with 94 of 243 (39%) patients achieving VGPR-based MRD negativity in the BVd arm vs 43 of 251 (17%) patients in the DVd arm. Inability to achieve MRD-negative status was associated with lower PFS and OS outcomes compared with the intention-to-treat population. Among patients who did not achieve CR-based MRD negativity, median PFS was 15.3 months (95% CI, 12.7-18.0 months; BVd, 25.0 months; DVd, 11.8 months), with an 18-month PFS rate of 45% (95% CI, 40%-50%; BVd, 57%; DVd, 36%); median OS was not reached at the data cutoff, and the 18-month OS rate was 74% (95% CI, 69%-78%; BVd, 79%; DVd, 70%). In patients who achieved CR-based MRD-negative status, median PFS and OS were not reached; by the data cutoff, 13% (BVd, 10%; DVd, 21%) of patients had PFS events, and 5% (BVd, 5%; DVd, 4%) had OS events. Conclusions: In the DREAMM-7 trial, patients in the BVd arm achieved MRD-negative status at more than double the rate observed in the DVd arm, and more patients achieved sustained MRD-negative status for ≥12 months with BVd. MRD negativity was associated with durable PFS and OS benefits, which is consistent with previous reports; this highlights the importance of the greater response depth that is achieved with BVd. Funding statement: GSK (Study # 207503) Drug linker technology licensed from Seagen Inc.; monoclonal antibody produced using POTELLIGENT Technology licensed from BioWa.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".