DREAMM-8 study of belantamab mafodotin plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone (BPd) vs pomalidomide plus bortezomib and dexamethasone (PVd) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM): A subgroup analysis in patients with high-risk cytogenetic features.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
7533 Background: In DREAMM-8 (NCT04484623), BPd demonstrated a significant improvement in the risk of progression or death vs PVd in patients (pts) with RRMM who received ≥1 prior line of therapy, including lenalidomide. Pts with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCAs) have a poor prognosis and need more efficacious treatments. Here we present a subgroup analysis in pts with HRCAs. Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to BPd (28-day cycles) or PVd (21-day cycles). Pts were treated until progressive disease, unacceptable toxicity, or death. Efficacy assessments occurred every 4 weeks. Pts with HRCAs were defined as having ≥1 of the following: t(4;14), t(14;16), amp1q, and del(17p13). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the results, along with 95% exact CIs. Hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated using the Cox model, with 95% CIs based on the Brookmeyer-Crowley method. Results: The intention-to-treat population included 302 pts: 155 in the BPd arm and 147 in the PVd arm. In the BPd arm, 68 of 155 (44%) pts had HRCAs; of them, 23 (15%) had t(4;14), 7 (5%) had t(14;16), 32 (21%) had del(17p13), and 40 (26%) had amp1q. In the PVd arm, 60 of 147 (41%) had HRCAs; of them, 20 (14%) had t(4;14), 11 (7%) had t(14;16), 26 (18%) had del(17p13), and 33 (22%) had amp1q. Median PFS in pts with ≥1 HRCA was 21.1 mo (95% CI, 13.5 mo-NR) with BPd vs 9.2 mo (95% CI, 6.5-14.8 mo) with PVd (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.36-0.95); 18-mo PFS rates were 53% and 33%, respectively. PFS benefit favored BPd across HRCA subgroups (HR [95% CI]: t(14;14), 0.74 [0.31-1.76]; del(17p13), 0.45 [0.22-0.92]; and amp1q, 0.49 [0.24-1.03]). In pts with ≥1 HRCA, overall response rate (ORR) was higher with BPd (n=52; 76%; 95% CI, 64.6%-85.9%) than PVd (n=39; 65%; 95% CI, 51.6%-76.9%), and more pts achieved ≥ complete response with BPd (Table). Benefit was maintained across HRCA subgroups. Conclusions: In pts with RRMM with HRC features, BPd demonstrated clinically meaningful PFS benefit, higher ORR, and a higher rate of deep responses vs PVd. These data support the potential use of BPd as a standard-of-care regimen in this key pt population with a high unmet need. Clinical trial information: NCT04484623 . Patients achieving ≥CR in HRC groups n/N (%); 95% CI BPd PVd t(4;14) 9/23 (39); 19.7-61.5 5/20 (25); 8.7-49.1 t(14;16) 3/7 (43); 9.9-81.6 2/11 (18); 2.3-51.8 del(17p13) 11/32 (34); 18.6-53.2 0/26; 0-13.2 amp1q 17/40 (43); 27.0-59.1 3/33 (9); 1.9-24.3 ≥1 HRCA 29/68 (43); 30.7-55.2 9/60 (15); 7.1-26.6
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".