MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405043193 · doi:10.1182/blood-2024-200336

Belantamab Mafodotin, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone Vs Daratumumab, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Overall Survival Analysis and Updated Efficacy Outcomes of the Phase 3 Dreamm-7 Trial

2024· article· en· W4405043193 on OpenAlexaff
Vânia Hungria, Paweł Robak, Marek Hus, Vera Zherebtsova, Christopher Wård, Phoebe Joy Ho, Roman Hájek, Kihyun Kım, Sebastian Grosicki, Hanlon Sia, Adam Bryant, Marcelo Pitombeira de Lacerda, Gracia Martınez, Anna Sureda Balarí, Irwindeep Sandhu, Claudio Cerchione, Peter Ganly, Meletios Α. Dimopoulos, Chengcheng Fu, Mamta Garg, Al-Ola Abdallah, Moshe E. Gatt, Albert Oriol, Michèle Cavo, Robert M. Rifkin, Tomoaki Fujisaki, Michał Mielnik, Nick Pirooz, Astrid McKeown, Rachel Rogers, Hena Baig, Lydia Eccersley, Sumita Roy–Ghanta, María‐Victoria Mateos

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsGlaxoSmithKline (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDaratumumabBortezomibDexamethasoneMedicineMultiple myelomaInternal medicineOncologyRefractory (planetary science)LenalidomideBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) are initially treated with triplet or quadruplet combination regimens that include proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulators, and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies. However, most patients with MM experience progression after initial treatment and need efficacious subsequent-line combinations that incorporate new drug classes. Multiple studies in this relapsed/refractory MM population have shown progression-free survival (PFS) benefit; however, it is important that this translates into overall survival (OS) benefit for patients, as OS considers both efficacy and safety. Currently, daratumumab-containing regimens are widely used in this setting because triplet daratumumab combinations have shown significant PFS and OS benefits compared with their respective doublet backbones without daratumumab. Belantamab mafodotin, a B-cell maturation antigen-targeting antibody-drug conjugate, has demonstrated single-agent sustained maintenance of deep and durable response with longer follow-up, owing to its multimodal mechanism of action that includes monomethyl auristatin F-induced cytotoxic cell death, antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity/phagocytosis, and immunogenic cell death. This has led to improvement in long-term clinical outcomes, including duration of response (DOR). Therefore, we anticipate that belantamab mafodotin in combination with standard-of-care therapies will show increasing OS benefit with longer follow-up. DREAMM-7 (NCT04246047) is a global, 1:1 randomized, open-label, phase 3, head-to-head trial comparing the efficacy and safety of 2 triplets-belantamab mafodotin, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (BVd) vs daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (DVd)-in patients with progression of MM after ≥1 prior line of therapy. The primary endpoint was independent review committee-assessed PFS. Secondary endpoints included OS, DOR, minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, and time from randomization to disease progression after subsequent antimyeloma therapy or death from any cause (PFS2) (Hungria et al. N Engl J Med 2024). In total, 494 patients were randomly assigned to receive BVd (n=243) or DVd (n=251). Baseline characteristics were balanced; overall, 51% of patients had received 1 previous line of therapy, 52% had exposure to lenalidomide, 34% had disease that was refractory to lenalidomide, and 28% had high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities. At a median follow-up of 28.2 months (range, 0.1-40.0 months), the primary endpoint was met, with a median PFS (95% CI) of 36.6 months (28.4 months-not reached [NR]) with BVd and 13.4 months (11.1-17.5 months) with DVd (hazard ratio [HR], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.31-0.53; P<.00001). BVd was associated with higher rates of complete response or better plus MRD negativity (25% vs 10%) and a more favorable restricted mean DOR (P<.001) than DVd. The median DOR (95% CI) was 35.6 months (30.5 months-NR) with BVd and 17.8 months (13.8-23.6 months) with DVd. Treatment benefits with BVd were also maintained after subsequent antimyeloma therapy, with an HR (95% CI) for median PFS2 of 0.56 (0.41-0.76). OS rates at 18 months with BVd vs DVd was 84% vs 73%, respectively. While median OS was NR in either arm at this first interim analysis, there was a strong trend in favor of BVd vs DVd, with an HR of 0.57 (95% CI, 0.40-0.80). Of note, in the CASTOR trial, median OS with DVd was 49.6 months in patients with a median of 2 prior lines of therapy. We will present the results from the second planned interim analysis of DREAMM-7, with an approximate 3.3 years of follow-up; this will provide further insight on the potential survival benefit with BVd and include updates on response depth, DOR, MRD-negativity rates, and PFS2. Overall, the DREAMM-7 head-to-head study of BVd vs DVd demonstrated statistically significant PFS benefit with BVd in patients with relapsed/refractory MM who have received ≥1 prior line of therapy. BVd also led to a deeper response and longer DOR than DVd. Since a strong and clinically meaningful early OS benefit with BVd was observed, updated practice-changing OS results are anticipated and will be presented at ASH 2024. Taken together, these results support BVd as a potential new standard of care in MM at first relapse or later. Funding: 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 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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designRandomized 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

Citations14
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicMultiple Myeloma Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207