A new drug called belantamab mafodotin significantly improved survival in relapsed multiple myeloma patients compared to a standard treatment.
Occasionally we hear about a trial result in oncology that makes our mouths drop open in amazement at its enormity. Examples include results from the IRIS trial (NCT01316250), which established imatinib (Gleevec) as a treatment for chronic myeloid leukemia or from the BCIRG 006 trial (NCT00021255), which demonstrated the benefit of adjuvant trastuzumab (Herceptin) in HER2-positive breast cancer. Findings announced at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Plenary Series brought out one of those “Wow, I didn’t see that one coming!” responses from me. The trial was DREAMM-7 (NCT04246047), which compared head- to-head belantamab mafodotin (belamaf; Blenrep) vs daratumumab (Darzalex), both in combination with bortezomib (Velcade) and dexamethasone (BVd vs DVd), in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma.
The FDA initially approved belamaf in 2020 for patients with myeloma who had previously received at least 4 prior therapies. The drug, however, causes ocular toxicity. Patients receiving the drug were mandated to see an ophthalmologist before every dose of belamaf, meaning every 3 weeks. I personally administered the drug to several patients, and it was a nuisance for them, to say the least.
Two years later, belamaf was withdrawn from the market because evidence from DREAMM-3 (NCT04162210), showed that the drug did not improve progression-free survival compared with pomalidomide (Pomalyst) plus dexamethasone. What chance did belamaf have against the mighty daratumumab in DREAMM-7? Quite a good one, as it turned out. Compared with the DVd arm, the BVd arm nearly tripled the median progression-free survival—from 13.4 to 36.6 months. There was a strong trend toward an improvement in overall survival (18 months, 84% vs 73%) in favor of the BVd arm.
To me, these results are staggering. Will DREAMM-7 change the field? I think most oncologists are probably moving daratumumab into the front line at this point. We have seen from the KarMMa-3 (NCT03651128) and CARTITUDE-4 (NCT04181827) trial data that early use of BCMA-targeting CAR T-cell therapies improves outcomes in myeloma. It would not surprise anyone if ongoing trials of BCMA-targeting bispecific antibodies were to show similar results. How these products get incorporated into clinical practice in myeloma will be interesting to see. The future of myeloma therapy is bright, as long as your vision is not too blurry to see it.
Overcoming Barriers in Cancer Clinical Trials: A Path Forward for Better Patient Care
April 29th 2024Clinical trials play a pivotal role in developing effective therapies, yet their integration is challenged by issues such as insufficient reimbursement structures, misaligned incentives, physician burnout, and a complex regulatory environment.
Read More
Gholam Analyzes Treatment Outcomes for Advanced HCC in Child-Pugh B Population
April 28th 2024During a live Community Case Forum event in partnership with the Tennessee Oncology Practice Society, Pierre Gholam, MD, examined the current state of treatment for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, looking in particular at what data is available for those with Child-Pugh B and C status who have poorer outcomes and have limited data from prospective clinical trials.
Read More
Roundtable Roundup April: Renal Cell Carcinoma
April 27th 2024In separate, live virtual events, Arnab Basu, MD, MPH, and Robert J. Motzer, MD, asked participants which therapy they would choose for a patient with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and why they would make that choice.
Read More