MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417012482 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-2265

Patients with Relapsed/Refractory multiple myeloma who achieved sustained minimal residual disease negativity in the dreamm-7 trial

2025· article· en· W4417012482 on OpenAlexaff
María‐Victoria Mateos, 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, Jie Ma, Yinjiao Ma, Maureen Nichols, Jorge Mouro, Zeyad Khalaf, Hena Baig, Benga Kazeem, Nick Pirooz, Lydia Eccersley, Vânia Hungria

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsGlaxoSmithKline (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBortezomibMultiple myelomaNegativity effectInterim analysisDaratumumabDexamethasoneMinimal residual diseaseClinical endpoint

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: In the phase 3 DREAMM-7 trial (NCT04246047), belantamab mafodotin (belamaf) plus bortezomib and dexamethasone (BVd) demonstrated significant progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) benefits vs daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone (DVd) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who had received ≥1 prior line of therapy (LOT). Minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity has been shown to be a predictor of PFS and OS in multiple myeloma. The first interim analysis of the DREAMM-7 trial (data cutoff: October 2, 2023) showed that patients in the BVd arm had a significantly higher rate of complete response (CR)–based MRD negativity vs those in the DVd arm. MRD was declared statistically significant at the second interim analysis (data cutoff: October 7, 2024) due to the prespecified testing hierarchy. The purpose of the current analysis was to evaluate the number of patients who achieved sustained MRD negativity for ≥12 months in the DREAMM-7 trial and to describe their demographics and baseline disease characteristics. Methods: As previously reported, patients treated with ≥1 prior LOT were randomized (1:1) to BVd or DVd in DREAMM-7. The primary endpoint was independent review committee–assessed PFS. OS and MRD negativity at achievement of ≥ CR were key secondary endpoints. Patients achieving ≥ CR were tested for MRD negativity by next-generation sequencing with 10−5 sensitivity and 10−6 sensitivity (exploratory analysis). Results: At data cutoff (October 7, 2024), CR–based MRD negativity rates in pts with ≥ CR were 70% (61/87) vs 59% (26/44) in the BVd vs DVd arms, respectively, at the 10−5 sensitivity threshold; rates in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population were 25% (95% CI, 19.8%-31.0%) vs 10% (95% CI, 6.9%-14.8%). At the 10−6 sensitivity threshold, rates in patients with ≥ CR were 45% (39/87) vs 23% (10/44) in the BVd vs DVd arms, respectively; rates in the ITT population were 16% (95% CI, 11.7%-21.3%) vs 4% (95% CI, 1.9%-7.2%). Median time to first CR–based MRD negativity was 11.14 months in the BVd arm vs 17.02 months in the DVd arm. Sustained ≥ CR MRD negativity was observed for ≥12 months in 57% (35/61) of patients who reached MRD negative status in the BVd arm vs 42% (11/26) of patients in the DVd arm. In patients who had sustained MRD negativity for ≥12 months, age was balanced between treatment arms. All patients had Revised International Staging System stages of I or II at screening. The DVd arm had a greater proportion of patients with 1 prior LOT (91%) vs the BVd arm (63%); the remaining patients in both arms received ≥2 prior LOTs. The proportion of patients with high-risk cytogenetics was greater in the BVd arm (40%) vs the DVd arm (27%). Conclusions: BVd demonstrated greater overall MRD negativity rates at 10−5 and 10−6 thresholds compared with DVd. In addition, for those patients achieving MRD negativity, more patients had sustained MRD-negative status for ≥12 months in BVd arm compared with DVd arm, further demonstrating the link between achieving deep and durable treatment responses. Funding: GSK (study ID, 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)0.004
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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