Functional high-risk Relapsed/Refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) outcomes with belantamab mafodotin (belamaf): Dreamm-7 and dreamm-8 subgroup analysis
Abstract
Abstract Background: There is a significant need for effective and well-tolerated therapies for patients (pts) with functional high-risk (FHR) MM. In DREAMM-7 (D7; NCT04246047), belamaf, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (BVd) demonstrated significant PFS and OS benefit vs daratumumab-Vd (DVd) in pts with RRMM with ≥1 prior line of therapy (LOT). In DREAMM-8 (D8; NCT04484623), belamaf, pomalidomide, and dexamethasone (BPd) demonstrated a significant PFS benefit vs PVd in pts with RRMM who received ≥1 prior LOT, including lenalidomide. Here, we present a subgroup analysis in pts with FHR MM treated with 1 prior LOT. Methods: Pts treated with ≥1 prior LOT were randomized (1:1) to BVd or DVd in D7 and BPd or PVd in D8. The primary endpoint of both trials was independent review committee–assessed PFS. Key secondary endpoints for both trials were OS, MRD, and DOR. In the D7 and D8 trials, FHR was defined as RRMM that progressed ≤18 mo after the start of ASCT or start of first-line therapy. Descriptive statistics were used for response rates, MRD negativity (10−5) rates, and adverse events (AEs). Hazard ratios (HRs) for PFS, OS, and DOR were estimated with the Cox model. The Kaplan-Meier method estimated median survival times. Results: Baseline disease characteristics were generally balanced between treatment arms in pts with 1 prior LOT, regardless of FHR status. In D7, 125 pts per arm who received 1 prior LOT were treated with BVd or DVd, with 43 pts in each arm having FHR MM. In D8, 82 and 77 pts who received 1 prior LOT were treated with BPd and PVd, respectively, with 28 (BPd) and 31 pts (PVd) having FHR MM. In D7, median follow-up was 28.2 mo for pts who received 1 prior LOT and 39.4 mo for pts with FHR MM. In D8, median follow-up was 21.8 mo for all pts. In D7, median PFS was longer in the BVd vs DVd arm, both in pts with 1 prior LOT (36.6 mo vs 19.1 mo; HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.36-0.76), and in those with FHR MM (28.4 mo vs 13.4 mo; HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.37-1.14). Similarly, in D8, median PFS favored the BPd vs PVd arm, both in pts with 1 prior LOT (not reached [NR] vs 18.5 mo; HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.30-0.85) and in those with FHR MM (NR vs 14.8 mo; HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.28-1.54). In pts treated with 1 prior LOT in D7, ORR was similar between BVd and DVd arms (83% vs 82%), with greater depth of response in the BVd arm (≥ CR: 39% vs 24%). In pts treated with 1 prior LOT in D7, ≥ CR MRD negativity rates were 28% (35/125) with BVd vs 14% (18/125) with DVd. In D7 pts with FHR MM, both ORR (86% vs 74%) and depth of response (≥ CR: 33% vs 21%) were higher with BVd vs DVd, respectively. In D7 pts with FHR MM, ≥ CR MRD negativity rates were 21% (9/43) with BVd vs 9% (4/43) with DVd. In pts treated with 1 prior LOT in D8, ORR was higher with PVd (88%) vs BPd (79%); however, response was deeper with BPd (≥ CR: 46% vs 23%). In pts treated with 1 prior LOT in D8, ≥ CR MRD negativity rates were 33% (27/82) with BPd vs 5% (4/77) with PVd. In D8 pts with FHR MM, ORR was comparable between pts in the BPd and PVd arms (82% vs 87%, respectively), with greater depth of response seen with BPd (≥ CR: 50% vs 23%). In pts with FHR MM in D8, ≥ CR MRD negativity rates were higher with BPd (36% [10/28]) than with PVd (7% [2/31]). In both the D7 and D8 trials, mOS was NR in pts with 1 prior LOT, regardless of FHR status. Among D7 pts with FHR MM, 70% in the BVd arm and 58% in the DVd arm were alive. Among pts with FHR MM in D8, 79% in the BPd arm vs 77% in the PVd arm were alive. In D7 pts treated with 1 prior LOT and FHR MM, grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) related to any study treatment occurred in 91% with BVd and 60% with DVd. In D8 pts treated with 1 prior LOT and FHR MM, grade 3/4 TRAEs related to any study treatment occurred in 78% with BPd and 71% with PVd. Conclusions: In both D7 and D8, BVd and BPd were associated with extended PFS vs standard-of-care (SOC) regimens DVd and PVd, respectively, in patients with FHR MM. Deeper responses with higher rates of ≥ CR MRD negativity were also observed vs SOC regimens in both studies. mOS was NR in both trials at the time of this analysis.Funding:GSK (study numbers: 207503; 207499). Drug linker technology licensed from Seagen Inc; monoclonal antibody produced using POTELLIGENT Technology licensed from BioWa
Article Details
Authors (36)
María-Victoria Mateos
Vania Hungria
Clinica São Germano, São Paulo
Meral Beksac
Pawel Robak
14Department of General Hematology, Copernicus Memorial Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center and Traumatology, Łódź, Poland
Kihyun Kim
Division of Hematology–Oncology, Department of Medicine, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea
Sergei Voloshin
6Leningrad Regional Clinical Hospital, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation
Hanlon Sia
10Pindara Private Hospital, Gold Coast, Australia
Esther González García
18Hospital Universitairo Cabueñes, Gijón, Spain, Gijón, Spain
Gracia Martinez
13Hospital das Clínicas and Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
Chang-Ki Min
Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea
Marcelo Pitombeira de Lacerda
12Universidade da Região de Joinville and Centro de Hematologia e Oncologia, Joinville, Brazil
Anna Sureda Balarí
7Institut Català d'Oncologia - Hospital Duran i Reynals, Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain
Ivan Špička
9Charles University and General Faculty Hospital in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
Sosana Delimpasi
11Evangelismos Hospital, Hematology, Athens, Greece
Marek Hus
Vera Zherebtsova
4Gorodskaya Klinicheskaya Bol'nitsa Im. S.p. Botkina, Moscow, Russian Federation
Christopher Ward
Phoebe Joy Ho
2Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, Australia
Roman Hajek
Sebastian Grosicki
Department of Cancer Prevention, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland
Syed Zafar
13South Region Research Office, Florida Cancer Specialists & Research Institute, North Port, United States
Al-Ola Abdallah
1The University of Kansas Cancer Center, Kansas City, United States
Jorge Mouro
18GSK, Baar, Switzerland
Zeyad Khalaf
19GSK, London, United Kingdom
Hena Baig
20GSK, Mississauga, Canada
Ainslee Moore
14GSK, Stevenage, United Kingdom
Chee Paul Lin
4GSK, Collegeville, United States
Maureen Nichols
17GSK, Durham, United States
Ianire Garrobo-Calleja
18GSK, London, United Kingdom
Sybil Varghese
16GSK, Collegeville, United States
Nick Pirooz
16GSK, Collegeville, United States
Joe Lee
Lydia Eccersley
19GSK, London, United Kingdom
Elisabet Manasanch
1University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Lymphoma & Myeloma, Houston, United States
Ludek Pour
Department of Internal Medicine, Hematology and Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Brno, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
Meletios Dimopoulos
18Department of Clinical Therapeutics, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Medicine, Athens, Greece