Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39920159›Full record

ReviewBlood cancer journal2025

The clinical journey of belantamab mafodotin in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: lessons in drug development.

Pralay Mukhopadhyay, Hesham A Abdullah, Joanna B Opalinska, Prani Paka, Eric Richards, Katja Weisel, Suzanne Trudel, Maria-Victoria Mateos, Meletios Athanasios Dimopoulos, Sagar Lonial

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Blood cancer journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Fc-engineering for improved cancer immunotherapy.Biochemical Society transactions · 2026
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Pralay MukhopadhyayGSK, Upper Providence, PA, USA.
Hesham A AbdullahGSK, Upper Providence, PA, USA.
Joanna B OpalinskaGSK, Upper Providence, PA, USA.
Prani PakaGSK, Upper Providence, PA, USA.
Eric RichardsGSK, Upper Providence, PA, USA.
Katja WeiselUniversity Medical Center of Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9422-6614
Suzanne TrudelPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Maria-Victoria MateosUniversity Hospital of Salamanca/IBSAL/CIC/CIBERONC, Salamanca, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-2390-1218
Meletios Athanasios DimopoulosDepartment of Clinical Therapeutics, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens School of Medicine, Athens, Greece.ORCID 0000-0001-8990-3254
Sagar LonialWinship Cancer Institute, Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, GA, USA. sloni01@emory.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-8322-9323

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) have a poor prognosis and a need remains for novel effective therapies. Belantamab mafodotin, an anti-B-cell maturation antigen antibody-drug conjugate, was granted accelerated/conditional approval for patients with RRMM who have received at least 4 prior lines of therapy, based on response rates observed in DREAMM-1/DREAMM-2. Despite the 41% response rate and durable responses observed with belantamab mafodotin in the Phase III confirmatory DREAMM-3 trial, the marketing license for belantamab mafodotin was later withdrawn from US and European markets when the trial did not meet its primary endpoint of superiority for progression-free survival compared with pomalidomide and dexamethasone. This review reflects on key lessons arising from the clinical journey of belantamab mafodotin in RRMM. It considers how incorporating longer follow-up in DREAMM-3 may have better captured the clinical benefits of belantamab mafodotin, particularly given its multimodal, immune-related mechanism of action with responses deepening over time. A non-inferiority hypothesis may have been more appropriate rather than superiority in the context of a monotherapy versus an active doublet therapy. Further, anticipation of, and planning for, non-proportional hazards arising from response heterogeneity may have mitigated loss of statistical power. With the aim of improving the efficacy of belantamab mafodotin, other Phase III trials in the RRMM development program (DREAMM-7 and DREAMM-8) proceeded to evaluate the synergistic potential of combination regimens in earlier lines of treatment. The aim was to increase the proportion of patients responding to belantamab mafodotin (and thus the likelihood of seeing a clear separation of the progression-free survival curve versus comparator regimens). Protocol amendments reflecting DREAMM-3 learnings could also be implemented prospectively on the combinations trials to optimize the follow-up duration and mitigate risk. The wider implications of the lessons learned for clinical research in RRMM and in earlier treatment settings are discussed.

Indexed as

Antibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedMultiple MyelomaDrug DevelopmentHumansAntibodies, Monoclonal, Humanizedbelantamab mafodotin

Identifiers

PMID39920159
PMCPMC11806103

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.