MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417013416 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-2264

Deep responses and durable outcomes in patients treated with belantamab mafodotin plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone from long-term follow-up of the Phase 3 dreamm-8 study

2025· article· en· W4417013416 on OpenAlexaff
Suzanne Trudel, Meral Beksac, Luděk Pour, Sosana Delimpasi, Vladimir Vorobyev, Hang Quach, Ivan Špıčka, Jakub Radocha, Paweł Robak, Kihyun Kım, Michèle Cavo, Kazuhito Suzuki, Ainslee Moore, Kristin Morris, Amy Phillips-Jones, Margaret Polinkovsky, Ianire Garrobo-Calleja, Elisabet E. Manasanch, Brandon E. Kremer, Joanna Opalińska, María‐Victoria Mateos, Meletios Α. Dimopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPomalidomideLenalidomideDexamethasoneClinical endpointHazard ratioRandomizationMultiple myelomaIntention-to-treat analysisRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Triplet or quadruplet regimens, combining proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulators, and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies, are standard of care for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM); however, most patients (pts) eventually experience relapse. At first relapse, there remains a lack of effective treatment options that have durable outcomes and are accessible for all pts, particularly those who have been exposed to or have disease refractory to lenalidomide and/or anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies. In the phase 3 DREAMM-8 trial (NCT04484623) in pts with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) who had received ≥1 prior line of treatment including lenalidomide, belantamab mafodotin in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone (BPd) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS; median follow-up, 21.8 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.52; 95% CI, 0.37-0.73; P<0.001) vs pomalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (PVd), a standard of care in this population. Here, we report long-term follow-up from the DREAMM-8 trial to better characterize the durability of BPd treatment benefit. Methods: As previously reported, pts who had received ≥1 prior line of therapy including lenalidomide were randomized 1:1 to receive BPd or PVd. Treatment continued until progressive disease, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or death, whichever occurred first. Efficacy assessments occurred every 4 weeks in the intention-to-treat population. The primary endpoint was PFS; secondary endpoints included overall survival, independent review committee–assessed response rates, minimal residual disease (MRD)–negative status, duration of response (DOR), PFS2 (ie, time from randomization to disease progression or death from any cause after initiation of new antimyeloma therapy), and safety. Results: Overall, 302 pts were randomized to receive BPd (n=155) or PVd (n=147). At the data cutoff (July 7, 2025), median follow-up was 35.8 months (range, 0.03-56.5 months). Median PFS (95% CI) with BPd vs PVd was 32.6 months (21.1 months-not reached [NR]) vs 12.5 months (9.1-17.6 months), respectively (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.36-0.67). BPd led to a substantial benefit in response depth, with a complete response or better (≥ CR) reported in 43% (67/155) of pts receiving BPd vs 17% (25/147) receiving PVd. Moreover, pts treated with BPd achieved ≥ CR MRD negativity at almost 5 times the rate observed in those receiving PVd (28% [43/155] vs 6% [9/147]). MRD negativity was durable, with 15% (24/155) of pts in the BPd arm having ≥ CR MRD negativity sustained for ≥12 months, compared with 3% (4/147) in the PVd arm. Consistent with the reported depth of response, responses with BPd were durable, with a median DOR (partial response or better; 95% CI) that was NR (29.5 months-NR) with BPd vs 16.4 months (11.1-22.5 months) with PVd; the proportion of pts with a 24-month DOR was 65% (95% CI, 55%-73%) vs 40% (95% CI, 29%-50%), respectively. PFS benefit was maintained following subsequent antimyeloma therapy, with a median PFS2 (95% CI) of 47.1 months (28.4 months-NR) in pts receiving BPd vs 21.7 months (13.8-28.6 months) in those receiving PVd (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.38-0.70). Follow-up for overall survival is ongoing. Overall, grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) and fatal serious AEs were experienced by 91% (136/150) and 14% (21/150) of pts in the BPd arm, respectively, compared with 74% (108/145) and 13% (19/145) of pts in the PVd arm; AEs leading to permanent discontinuation of any treatment component occurred in 22% (33/150) of pts receiving BPd vs 14% (21/145) receiving PVd. Conclusions: After extended follow-up of the DREAMM-8 trial,BPd led to a substantial increase in response depth and durability vs PVd in a population of pts with RRMM, most of whom had lenalidomide-refractory disease and a quarter of whom had disease refractory to anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies. The updated safety profile of BPd was broadly consistent with the primary analysis. BPd resulted in a median PFS of >30 months and a maintained PFS benefit following subsequent antimyeloma therapy; as a combination that can be easily administered in the outpatient setting, these results support BPd as a potential new standard of care in RRMM. Funding statement: GSK (study ID 207499).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)0.003
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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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