MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4405039227 · doi:10.1182/blood-2024-199282

Belantamab Mafodotin Plus Pomalidomide and Dexamethasone Vs Pomalidomide Plus Bortezomib and Dexamethasone in Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma: A Subset Analysis in Patients Who Have Received 1 Prior Line of Therapy Including Lenalidomide

2024· article· en· W4405039227 on OpenAlexaff
Meral Beksaç, Esther González García, Sosana Delimpasi, Paweł Robak, Kamaraj Karunanithi, Felipe de Arriba, Jakub Radocha, Kihyun Kım, Sergey Voloshin, Vera Zherebtsova, Iurii Osipov, María‐Victoria Mateos, Syed F. Zafar, Luděk Pour, Ivan Špıčka, Kazuhito Suzuki, Xin Du, Jodie Wilkes, Brijesh Maroj, Kristin Morris, Jie Ma, Margaret Polinkovsky, Zhaohui Wang, Xiaoou L Zhou, Giulia Fulci, Neal Sule, Brandon E. Kremer, Joanna Opalinska, Suzanne Trudel, Meletios Α. Dimopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPomalidomideDexamethasoneBortezomibMedicineMultiple myelomaInternal medicineOncologyLenalidomideRefractory (planetary science)Biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Use of triplet/quadruplet therapies for 1L multiple myeloma (MM) raises the need for novel combinations at first relapse. In the phase 3 DREAMM-8 (NCT04484623) study, belantamab mafodotin (belamaf) + pomalidomide + dexamethasone (BPd) led to significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population than pomalidomide + bortezomib + dexamethasone (PVd) in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory MM who had received ≥1 prior line of therapy (LOT) including lenalidomide (len). Efficacy of PVd, which was the standard-of-care (SOC) comparator in several trials evaluating BCMA-targeting agents, was similar to previously reported results. Here, we present a post hoc subgroup analysis in 2L pts (at first relapse after 1 prior LOT). Methods Pts were randomized 1:1 to BPd (28-day cycles) or PVd (21-day cycles). Response assessments occurred every 4 weeks. Results Of the randomized pts, 159 received 1 prior LOT (n=82, BPd; n=77, PVd). All pts were len exposed; 119 (75%) had len-refractory disease (66 [80%] in the BPd arm and 53 [69%] in the PVd arm). Baseline demographic and disease characteristics were generally balanced between arms, except for the presence of extramedullary disease (9 pts in the BPd arm vs 1 in the PVd arm). At data cutoff (Jan 29, 2024), 47 pts (57%) in the BPd arm and 25 (32%) in the PVd arm were still receiving study treatment; 18 pts had died in each arm. Median duration of follow-up was 21.5 mo with BPd and 19.8 mo with PVd. Among all pts in the 2L (n=159), median PFS (95% CI) was not reached (NR; NR-NR) with BPd and 18.5 mo (12.5 mo-NR) with PVd (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.30-0.85). The 12-mo PFS rate (95% CI) was 78% (67%-86%) with BPd and 64% (51%-74%) with PVd. A complete response or better (CR+) was achieved by 46% (35%-58%) of pts on BPd vs 23% (15%-34%) on PVd; 27/82 (33% [23%-44%]) pts on BPd vs 4/77 (5% [1%-13%]) pts on PVd achieved CR+ and minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity assessed by next-generation sequencing at 10-5 threshold. Median duration of response (DOR; 95% CI) was NR (NR-NR) with BPd vs 18.0 mo (13.8 mo-NR) with PVd; the 12-mo rate of DOR was 87% (76%-93%) with BPd vs 67% (53%-78%) with PVd. In pts with len-refractory disease in the 2L, median PFS (95% CI) was NR (21.1 mo-NR) with BPd vs 13.1 mo (9.1-19.8 mo) with PVd (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.25-0.75). The 12-mo PFS rate (95% CI) was 74% (61%-83%) with BPd vs 53% (38%-67%) with PVd. The CR+ and very good partial response or better (VGPR+) rates were higher with BPd (CR+, 44%; VGPR+, 67%) vs PVd (CR+, 21%; VGPR+, 45%); 22/66 (33% [22%-46%]) pts on BPd vs 3/53 (6% [1%-16%]) on PVd achieved CR+ and MRD negativity. The median DOR (95% CI) was NR (NR-NR) with BPd vs 13.8 mo (8.0 mo-NR) with PVd; the 12-mo rate of DOR was 84% (70%-91%) with BPd vs 57% (40%-71%) with PVd. The safety profile in pts in the 2L was consistent with that in the overall population. Safety analyses included 80 pts on BPd and 77 on PVd. Median (range) overall duration of exposure to any study treatment was 20.5 mo (0.9-34.3 mo) for BPd and 10.8 mo (0.7-35.4 mo) for PVd. Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 91% of pts on BPd vs 75% on PVd. Fatal serious AEs were reported in 11% of pts on BPd vs 9% on PVd. Thrombocytopenia occurred in 56% of pts (grade ≥3, 38%) on BPd vs 39% (grade ≥3, 25%) on PVd, and neutropenia occurred in 63% of pts (grade ≥3, 54%) on BPd vs 44% on PVd (grade ≥3, 34%). Grade ≥3 ocular AEs occurred in 36% of pts on BPd vs 3% on PVd. Ocular events in the BPd group were manageable and reversible with dose modifications; they led to treatment discontinuation in 9/80 (11%) pts. A normal best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) at baseline with postbaseline bilateral worsening of BCVA to 20/50 was reported in 24 pts (30%) treated with BPd. The first event resolved in 22/24 (92%) pts by data cutoff. Of the pts with normal BCVA at baseline (20/25 in ≥1 eye), median (range) time to resolution was 57 days (14-315 days). Conclusions In pts in the 2L with prior len exposure, BPd showed robust PFS benefit (HR, 0.50), with deeper and more durable responses than PVd; benefit (HR, 0.43) was maintained in len-refractory disease. The safety profile was consistent with that in the overall population, with manageable AEs. These results support the potential use of BPd as an SOC regimen for len-exposed pts at first relapse, regardless of len refractoriness. Funding: GSK (Study # 207499) 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 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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