MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417002382 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-5840

Belantamab mafodotin (belamaf) in combination with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) for patients (pts) with transplant-ineligible (TI) newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM): A focus on treatment efficacy and management/resolution of ocular events in the Phase 1 dreamm-9 study

2025· article· en· W4417002382 on OpenAlexaff
Saad Z. Usmani, Michał Mielnik, Aránzazu Alonso Alonso, Al-Ola Abdallah, Mamta Garg, Wojciech Janowski, Youngil Koh, Chang‐Ki Min, Enrique M. Ocio, Hang Quach, Karthik Ramasamy, Albert Oriol, Paula Rodríguez‐Otero, Ricarda García Sánchez, Irwindeep Sandhu, Katja Weisel, Chris Brawley, Miguel Murillo, F. Carreño, Jacqueline Egger, Morrys C. Kaisermann, Marek Hus

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisual acuityMultiple myelomaClinical endpointDexamethasoneDosingProportional hazards modelHazard ratioLogistic regression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Belamaf is an antibody-drug conjugate approved in multiple countries as part of combination regimens for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. DREAMM-9 is evaluating belamaf plus VRd (BVRd) in TI NDMM. Treatment with belamaf can cause keratopathy which is managed with dose/schedule modifications. We examined ocular event occurrence and resolution alongside efficacy in DREAMM-9. Methods: Pts aged ≥18 years with TI NDMM received BVRd in 1 of 8 belamaf dosing cohorts at a Q3/4W (SHORT: 1.9, 1.4, or 1.0 mg/kg), Q6/8W (STRETCH: 1.9 or 1.4 mg/kg), Q9/12W step-down (S/D: 1.9 for 1 dose then S/D to 1.4 mg/kg or 1.4 for 1 dose then S/D to 1.0 mg/kg), or Q12W (1.0 mg/kg) schedule. VRd was administered per US prescribing information for Cycles 1‒8 (21-day cycle), then Rd for Cycles 9+ (28-day cycle). Primary endpoint was safety and tolerability. Ocular examination findings (OEF) were measured using the Keratopathy and Visual Acuity (KVA) scale comprising changes in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and slit lamp findings. OEFs were managed through dose reductions and schedule extensions. Changes in bilateral BCVA to 20/50 or worse in pts who had BCVA of 20/25 or better in at least 1 eye at baseline were assessed. Objective response rate (ORR), complete response (CR), and minimal residual disease negativity (MRD-; 10-5 threshold by next-generation sequencing) were assessed (IMWG criteria, 2016). In exposure-response (ER) analyses, logistic regression models were used to assess the probability of efficacy/safety endpoints and Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess time-to-event endpoints. Results: As of March 4, 2024, 108 pts were enrolled across the 8 dosing cohorts (Usmani et al. Blood 2024), with median duration of follow-up 7.8‒37.6 months. Across all cohorts, ORR was ≥71% (100% in 1.9 SHORT, 1.9 STRETCH, 1.4 STRETCH, 1.0 Q12W). MRD- in pts with CR+ was 75% (1.9 SHORT), 67% (1.9 STRETCH), 54% (1.4 SHORT), 45% (1.4 STRETCH), 29% (1.9 S/D to 1.4), 43% (1.0 SHORT), 27% (1.4 S/D to 1.0), 0% (1.0 Q12W). Grade (Gr) ≥2 OEF were seen in 74% of pts and decrease in BCVA to 20/50 or worse was seen in 27% of pts overall. Both Gr≥2 OEF and decrease in BCVA to 20/50 or worse in pts with 20/25 or better in ≥1 eye at baseline had a trend towards lower incidence in lower-dose-intensity cohorts (Usmani et al. Blood 2024). The first Gr≥2 OEF resolved in 90% of total affected pts. Resolution rates were: 92% 1.9 SHORT; 91% 1.9 STRETCH; 91% 1.4 STRETCH; 92% 1.4 SHORT; 100% 1.9 S/D to 1.4; 91% 1.0 SHORT; 100% 1.4 S/D to 1.0; 40% 1.0 Q12W (shorter follow-up than the other cohorts). The first decrease in BCVA to 20/50 or worse resolved in 89% of pts overall; resolution rates were: 100% 1.9 SHORT; 100% 1.9 STRETCH; 67% 1.4 STRETCH; 100% 1.4 SHORT; 100% 1.9 S/D to 1.4; 100% 1.0 SHORT; 0% in 1.4 S/D to 1.0 (only 1 patient had an event); in 1.0 Q12W, no pts had an event. Discontinuation rates due to Gr≥2 OEF events were low at 6% across the study (range: 0% [1.9 STRETCH, 1.4 STRETCH, 1.9 S/D to 1.4, and 1.0 Q12W] to 15% [1.4 SHORT]). ER analyses (Carreño et al. Blood 2024) found a positive correlation between belamaf cycle 1 average concentration (Cavg) and probability of response, but not probability of safety events. A Q6/8W schedule was associated with higher probability of CR+ (odds ratio [OR] 3.11 [95% CI 0.856–14.9]), while Q9/12W was associated with lower probability of Gr≥2 OEFs (OR 0.114 [95% CI 0.0301–0.348]) and longer time to Gr≥2 OEFs (OR 0.0674 [95% CI 0.0338–0.134]) but also lower probability of CR+ (OR 0.333 [95% CI 0.13–0.818]). Conclusions: While BVRd demonstrated high ORRs across all cohorts, MRD- rates were higher in the 1.9 SHORT/1.9 STRETCH cohorts, consistent with ER data correlating belamaf Cavg and deep responses. Across cohorts, ocular events were manageable via dose reductions/schedule extensions. Although lower-dose-intensity cohorts trended to lower OEF incidence, ocular events were successfully managed across all cohorts; the 1.9 SHORT/1.9 STRETCH cohorts achieved high OEF resolution rates while inducing high MRD- rates with low discontinuation rates due to OEF. In line with clinical observations, ER analyses indicated the potential for higher doses to optimize responses and longer schedules to optimize tolerability. Together, an initial 1.9 mg/kg dose of belamaf with a Q6/8W schedule in pts with NDMM may induce deeper responses, and subsequent schedule extensions may improve tolerability.

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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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