MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

DREAMM-7 study of belantamab mafodotin plus bortezomib and dexamethasone (BVd) vs daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone (DVd) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM): A subgroup analysis in patients (pts) with high-risk cytogenetic (HRC) features.

2025· article· en· W4410809998 on OpenAlexaff
María‐Victoria Mateos, Paweł Robak, Marek Hus, Chengcheng Fu, Vera Zherebtsova, Christopher Wård, P. Joy Ho, Roman Hájek, Kihyun Kım, Meletios Α. Dimopoulos, Claudio Cerchione, Nicholas Pirooz, Astrid McKeown, Chee Paul Lin, Hena Baig, Lydia Eccersley, Sumita Roy–Ghanta, Joanna Opalinska, Vânia Hungria

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsGlaxoSmithKline (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDaratumumabBortezomibDexamethasoneMultiple myelomaInternal medicineSubgroup analysisOncologyRefractory (planetary science)Confidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

7546 Background: In DREAMM-7 (NCT04246047), BVd exhibited a significant improvement in the risk of progression or death vs DVd in pts with RRMM who had ≥1 prior line of treatment. In a post hoc analysis (Mateos et al; ASCO 2024) of pts with ≥1 HRC abnormality (HRCA), including t(4;14), t(14;16), and 17p13del, more pts had deep responses (defined as complete response [CR] or better) with BVd (45%; 95% CI, 32.6%-57.4%) than with DVd (13%; 95% CI, 6.1%-23.3%). Up to 70% of pts at early relapse have amp1q, which confers an increased risk of disease progression. Here we present an updated post hoc efficacy analysis in pts with HRCA, including amp1q. Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to BVd or DVd as previously reported. For this analysis, pts with HRC were defined as those having ≥1 HRCA, including t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), 17p13del, and amp1q (defined as ≥4 copies of chromosome 1q21). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize results, with 95% exact CI. Hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated using the Cox model, with 95% CI based on the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. Results: The ITT population included 494 pts: BVd, n=243; DVd, n=251. In the BVd arm, 122/243 pts (50%) had HRC, of which 41 (17%) had t(4;14), 8 (3%) had t(14;16), 1 (0.4%) had t(14;20), 30 (12%) had 17p13del, and 94 (39%) had amp1q. In the DVd arm, 115/251 (46%) had HRC, of which 42 (17%) had t(4;14), 6 (2%) had t(14;16), 1 (0.4%) had t(14;20), 35 (14%) had 17p13del, and 79 (31%) had amp1q. Median PFS in pts with ≥1 HRCA was 33.2 mo (95% CI, 20.1 mo-not reached) with BVd vs 11.1 mo (95% CI, 9.0-15.1 mo) with DVd (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.27-0.59), and 18-mo PFS rates were 61% and 38%, respectively. PFS benefit favored BVd across subgroups (HR [95% CI]): t(4;14), 0.36 [0.19-0.67]; 17p13del, 0.25 [0.11-0.61]; amp1q, 0.48 [0.31-0.73]; t (14;16) and t(14;20) were not analyzed due to low numbers. In pts with ≥1 HRCA, overall response rate was 81% (n=99; 95% CI, 73.1%-87.7%) with BVd and 69% (n=79; 95% CI, 59.4%-77.0%) with DVd; more pts achieved ≥CR with BVd than with DVd (Table). The benefit was maintained across subgroups. Conclusions: In pts with RRMM and ≥1 HRCA, PFS benefit favored BVd vs DVd, and BVd demonstrated a higher rate of deep response. Current outcomes in pts with HRC features are suboptimal, and these data support BVd as a potential standard-of-care regimen in these pts with high unmet need. Clinical trial information: NCT04246047 . Patients achieving ≥CR in HRC Groups n/N (%); 95% CI BVd DVd t (4;14) 20/41 (49); 32.9-64.9 6/42 (14); 5.4-28.5 t (14;16) 1/8 (13); 0.3-52.7 0/6; 0-45.9 17p13del 11/30 (37); 19.9-56.1 4/35 (11); 3.2-26.7 amp1q 31/94 (33); 23.6-43.4 16/79 (20); 12.0-30.8 ≥1 HRCA 48/122 (39); 30.6-48.6 20/115 (17); 11.0-25.6

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)0.002
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 score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.344 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments→French-language works237,207→