MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405045412 · doi:10.1182/blood-2024-198669

Phase I Study of Belantamab Mafodotin in Combination with Standard of Care in Transplant-Ineligible Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: Dreamm-9 Updated Interim Analysis

2024· article· en· W4405045412 on OpenAlexaff
Saad Z. Usmani, Michał Mielnik, Mamta Garg, Irwindeep Sandhu, Al‐Ola Abdallah, Youngil Koh, Albert Oriol, Hang Quach, Katja Weisel, Aránzazu Alonso, Enrique M. Ocio, Wojciech Janowski, Chang‐Ki Min, Karthik Ramasamy, Ricarda García Sánchez, Paula Rodríguez‐Otero, Chris Brawley, Jacqueline L. Egger, Morrys C. Kaisermann, Marek Hus

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTolerabilityMedicineLenalidomideMultiple myelomaInterim analysisAdverse effectClinical endpointInternal medicineBortezomibData monitoring committeeOncologySurgeryUrologyClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction DREAMM-9 (NCT04091126) is an ongoing randomized Phase 1 dose optimization study evaluating belantamab mafodotin (belamaf) plus bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) in autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT)-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (TI NDMM). A previous interim analysis reported no unexpected safety signals and early and deep anti-myeloma responses (Usmani et al. JCO, 2023). Here we report data on all cohorts explored in the trial in the TI NDMM setting. Methods Patients (pts) ≥18 years (yrs) ineligible for ASCT and with no prior MM treatment were dosed in one of 8 cohorts (C1-8) with differing belamaf doses (mg/kg) and schedules and follow-up: C1, 1.9 Q3/4W (N=12); C2, 1.9 Q6/8W (N=12); C3, 1.4 Q3/4W (N=13); C4, 1.4 Q6/8W (N=12); C5, 1.9 for 1 dose and then 1.4 Q9/12W (N=19); C6, 1.0 Q3/4W (N=15); C7, 1.4 for 1 dose and then 1.0 Q9/12W (N=15); C8, 1.0 Q12W (N=10). Cohorts with lower doses and longer schedules were opened to inform on the potential to improve tolerability while maintaining efficacy. All cohorts received belamaf with standard VRd for Cycles 1‒8 (21-day cycle), followed by Rd for Cycles 9+ (28-day cycle). Primary endpoint was safety/tolerability (dose-limiting toxicities [DLTs] and adverse events [AEs]). Efficacy endpoints included overall response rate (ORR, % of pts with a confirmed partial response or better); complete response rate (CRR, % of pts with a complete response or better [CR+]); and minimal residual disease negativity rate (MRD[-], % of pts with very good partial response or better [VGPR+] and reached MRD negativity at 10-5 threshold by next generation sequencing). Responses were assessed per International Myeloma Working Group criteria (2016). Results As of Mar 4, 2024, 108 pts were treated in 8 cohorts. Median age (range) was 74.0 (51‒88) yrs; 44% (n=47) were ≥75 yrs old, 86% were White, and 46% female. Overall duration of follow-up ranged from 0.1-49.8 months, and by cohort (months, interquartile range) was: C1, 37.6 (21.9‒43.1); C2, 32.3 (31.4‒33.4); C3, 20.2 (14.0‒33.0); C4, 32.4 (18.8‒33.6); C5, 17.1 (2.8‒20.3); C6, 31.0 (16.3‒33.4); C7, 18.2 (8.7‒20.6); C8, 7.8 (7.0‒8.7). Of the pts who received ≥1 dose of belamaf, 100% (n=105) experienced AEs. Grade 3+ (Gr3+) belamaf-related AEs ranged from 67% (n=8) for C1 to 10% (n=1) for C8. Ocular events (Gr3+) based on keratopathy and visual acuity scale (KVA) were reported in 55% (n=58) of pts across cohorts; dose interruptions/delays were seen in 95% (n=55) and dose reductions in 33% (n=19) of affected pts. Cohorts 1-3 had the highest proportion of pts with Gr3+ KVA events (% [n]): C1, 83 (10); C2, 92 (11); C3, 85 (11), while the lowest was reported for C7, 7 (1) and C8, 20 (2). The most common non-ocular Gr3+ AEs (% [n]) across all cohorts were thrombocytopenia, 30 (32), neutropenia, 26 (27), and COVID-19 pneumonia, 14 (15). A total of 28 pts (27%) had a decrease in best correct visual acuity (BCVA) score from baseline (20/25 or better) to 20/50 or worse, with a median (range) time of 194 (42-713) days to onset of the first occurrence, of which 89% (n=25) resolved in a median (range) of 85 (22-421) days. The longest median time to onset was reported for the cohorts with the longer dosing intervals (days [n]): C7 (Q9/12W), 337 (1); C4 (Q6/8W), 263.5 (6); C2 (Q6/8W), 245.5 (6). The shortest median time to onset was 76 days for C1 (Q3/4W). Across the cohorts ORR (% [range]) was 90 (71-100); CRR (% [range]) was 63 (30-92) and median time to VGPR+ ranged from 2.1‒3.2 months. ORR % (CRR %) by cohort was C1, 100 (75); C2, 100 (92); C3, 92 (62); C4, 100 (91); C5, 71 (41); C6, 86 (71); C7, 87 (53); C8, 100 (30). MRD[-] rate in pts with VGPR+ ranged from 10% (C8) to 83% (C1). MRD[-] rate in pts with CR+ ranged from 0% (C8) to 75% (C1) and was highest in (% [n]): C1, 75 (9); C2, 67 (8), and C3, 54 (7). Conclusions These results show that belamaf plus VRd in patients with TI NDMM delivered highly effective tumor responses across all dosing schedules. Regardless of dosing interval, higher belamaf doses were associated with higher rates of MRD negativity. Longer dosing intervals were associated with fewer ocular events and increased time to onset of clinically meaningful BCVA changes; follow-up is ongoing. Across the cohorts, ocular events were effectively managed with dose holds/reductions maintaining patients on treatment. These data are consistent with prior clinical studies of belamaf in the relapsed/refractory setting.

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)0.005
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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