ArticleEJHaem2025
Belantamab Mafodotin Monotherapy for Multiply-Relapsed Myeloma: A Retrospective Study From the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.
Article in EJHaem, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Belantamab mafodotin (belamaf) was the first BCMA-targeting immunotherapy licensed in myeloma and was available as monotherapy for a fifth or greater line of treatment. Outcomes for patients in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland potentially differ from those of other regions and may illuminate factors predicting response to therapy. Methods and Results: We performed a retrospective study of patients treated with belamaf monotherapy in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. In our cohort of 88 patients, we saw an overall response rate (ORR) of 60%, a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 8.7 months and a median duration of response (DoR) of 15.8 months. The spectrum of adverse events was as expected, with 84% (71/85) of patients experiencing toxicity. Eye-related adverse events were the most common, affecting 66% (56/85), leading to dose reduction or delay in 41% (35/85) and discontinuation in 6% (5/85). We specifically assessed physician decision-making in the context of ocular side effects and found a relatively high frequency of the drug being administered despite moderate levels of toxicity. Conclusion: Our cohort's ORR is significantly different from those of the DREAMM-2 and -3 trials and other real-world studies, though a long-duration response has been reported in other cohorts. Comparative analysis with other real-world studies did not reveal any significant factors predictive of ORR. The frequent administration of belamaf to patients with eye disease may well reflect a more pragmatic approach than was originally prescribed in the landmark trials. Trial Registration: The authors have confirmed clinical trial registration is not needed for this submission.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.