Long-term responders from the Phase 3 dreamm-7 study of belantamab mafodotin plus bortezomib and dexamethasone vs daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone in Relapsed/Refractory multiple myeloma

Abstract Introduction: In the phase 3, open-label, randomized DREAMM-7 trial (NCT04246047) in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who had ≥1 prior line of treatment, belantamab mafodotin, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (BVd) led to statistically significant and clinically meaningful progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) benefit vs daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (DVd), as well as deep and durable responses after extended follow-up (data cutoff: October 7, 2024; median follow-up, 39.4 months in the intention-to-treat population). This post hoc analysis was conducted to further investigate the characteristics of and outcomes in pts achieving sustained clinical benefit with BVd (ie, long-term responders [LTRs]). Methods: As previously reported,pts were randomized 1:1 to BVd or DVd. Pts were treated until disease progression, death, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or loss to follow-up, whichever occurred first. The primary endpoint was PFS; key secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, and OS. Other secondary endpoints included response rates, PFS2, and safety. LTRs were defined as pts who had PFS ≥36 months. The last pt was randomized on June 28, 2021; with a data cutoff of October 7, 2024, all pts remaining on study have been on for >3 years. Results: Of 494 pts in DREAMM-7 (BVd, n=243; DVd, n=251), 125 were LTRs; the BVd arm had approximately twice as many LTRs (n=78 [32%]) as the DVd arm (n=47 [19%]). While baseline characteristics between treatment arms were generally well balanced, LTRs had slightly different baseline characteristics compared with non-LTRs. While all LTRs had Revised International Staging System (R-ISS) stage I or II disease, non-LTRs included a small number of pts with R-ISS stage III disease (n=23 [6%]). Non-LTRs had a 7% higher rate of extramedullary disease vs LTRs. LTRs had fewer prior lines of therapy vs non-LTRs, with 83% vs 71% having 1 or 2 prior lines of therapy, respectively. High-risk cytogenetics were balanced between LTRs and non-LTRs; however, 1q21 amplification was more common in non-LTRs (39%) vs LTRs (24%). In BVd-treated LTRs, median PFS, DOR, PFS2, and OS were not reached (NR). In DVd-treated LTRs, median PFS was 49 months (95% CI, not evaluable [NE]-NE) and median DOR was 48 months (95% CI, NE-NE); median PFS2 and OS were both NR. While all LTRs had a response, LTRs treated with BVd vs DVd had deeper responses: 72% vs 57% had complete response or better (≥ CR), 96% vs 92% had very good partial response or better (≥ VGPR), 54% vs 40% had MRD negativity plus ≥ CR (75% vs 70% of pts with ≥ CR), and 71% vs 53% had MRD negativity plus ≥ VGPR (73% vs 58% of pts with ≥ VGPR), respectively. The safety profile in LTRs who received long-term treatment was consistent with that previously reported. Conclusions: BVd-treated LTRs had higher rates of ≥ CR and MRD negativity than DVd-treated LTRs, which corresponded with BVd-treated LTRs having longer PFS and more durable responses compared with DVd-treated LTRs. Together, these results further support that deeper responses with BVd resulted in prolonged remission. The safety profile in LTRs was consistent with that previously reported. Funding statement: GSK (Study ID: 207503).Drug-linker technology licensed from Seagen Inc; monoclonal antibody produced using POTELLIGENT Technology licensed from BioWa.

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Blood
Published
2025-11-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2025-2262
Primary Topic
Multiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Long-term responders from the Phase 3 dreamm-7 study of belantamab mafodotin plus bortezomib and dexamethasone vs daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone in Relapsed/Refractory multiple myeloma

Blood
Multiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
article

Long-term responders from the Phase 3 dreamm-7 study of belantamab mafodotin plus bortezomib and dexamethasone vs daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone in Relapsed/Refractory multiple myeloma

article en

Abstract

Abstract Introduction: In the phase 3, open-label, randomized DREAMM-7 trial (NCT04246047) in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who had ≥1 prior line of treatment, belantamab mafodotin, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (BVd) led to statistically significant and clinically meaningful progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) benefit vs daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (DVd), as well as deep and durable responses after extended follow-up (data cutoff: October 7, 2024; median follow-up, 39.4 months in the intention-to-treat population). This post hoc analysis was conducted to further investigate the characteristics of and outcomes in pts achieving sustained clinical benefit with BVd (ie, long-term responders [LTRs]). Methods: As previously reported,pts were randomized 1:1 to BVd or DVd. Pts were treated until disease progression, death, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, or loss to follow-up, whichever occurred first. The primary endpoint was PFS; key secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, and OS. Other secondary endpoints included response rates, PFS2, and safety. LTRs were defined as pts who had PFS ≥36 months. The last pt was randomized on June 28, 2021; with a data cutoff of October 7, 2024, all pts remaining on study have been on for >3 years. Results: Of 494 pts in DREAMM-7 (BVd, n=243; DVd, n=251), 125 were LTRs; the BVd arm had approximately twice as many LTRs (n=78 [32%]) as the DVd arm (n=47 [19%]). While baseline characteristics between treatment arms were generally well balanced, LTRs had slightly different baseline characteristics compared with non-LTRs. While all LTRs had Revised International Staging System (R-ISS) stage I or II disease, non-LTRs included a small number of pts with R-ISS stage III disease (n=23 [6%]). Non-LTRs had a 7% higher rate of extramedullary disease vs LTRs. LTRs had fewer prior lines of therapy vs non-LTRs, with 83% vs 71% having 1 or 2 prior lines of therapy, respectively. High-risk cytogenetics were balanced between LTRs and non-LTRs; however, 1q21 amplification was more common in non-LTRs (39%) vs LTRs (24%). In BVd-treated LTRs, median PFS, DOR, PFS2, and OS were not reached (NR). In DVd-treated LTRs, median PFS was 49 months (95% CI, not evaluable [NE]-NE) and median DOR was 48 months (95% CI, NE-NE); median PFS2 and OS were both NR. While all LTRs had a response, LTRs treated with BVd vs DVd had deeper responses: 72% vs 57% had complete response or better (≥ CR), 96% vs 92% had very good partial response or better (≥ VGPR), 54% vs 40% had MRD negativity plus ≥ CR (75% vs 70% of pts with ≥ CR), and 71% vs 53% had MRD negativity plus ≥ VGPR (73% vs 58% of pts with ≥ VGPR), respectively. The safety profile in LTRs who received long-term treatment was consistent with that previously reported. Conclusions: BVd-treated LTRs had higher rates of ≥ CR and MRD negativity than DVd-treated LTRs, which corresponded with BVd-treated LTRs having longer PFS and more durable responses compared with DVd-treated LTRs. Together, these results further support that deeper responses with BVd resulted in prolonged remission. The safety profile in LTRs was consistent with that previously reported. Funding statement: GSK (Study ID: 207503).Drug-linker technology licensed from Seagen Inc; monoclonal antibody produced using POTELLIGENT Technology licensed from BioWa.

BloodVol. 146(Supplement 1)
Medical University of Lublin (PL), Medical University of Silesia (PL), Universidade de São Paulo (BR), Durham University (GB), Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (AU), Royal North Shore Hospital (AU), Liverpool Hospital (AU), Samsung Medical Center (KR), Institut d'Investigació Biomédica de Bellvitge (ES), University Hospital Ostrava (CZ), Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo (BR), Universidade da Região de Joinville (BR), Institut Català d'Oncologia (ES), São Germano Oncologia (BR), GlaxoSmithKline (United States) (US), Botkin Hospital (RU), GlaxoSmithKline (Canada) (CA), Canossa Private Hospital (AU), Centro de Investigación del Cáncer (ES), Scanmed (Poland) (PL), Amt für Gemeinden und Raumordnung (CH), University of Silesia in Katowice (PL)
Openalex Percentile: Top 28%
Multiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.