Trial reportInternational journal of hematology2026
Belantamab mafodotin, bortezomib, and dexamethasone for RRMM in the Japan expansion cohort of the phase 3 DREAMM-7 trial.
Trial report in International journal of hematology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04246047 (DREAMM 7), which is not on this 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.
DREAMM 7: A Multicenter, Open-Label, Randomized Phase III Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of the Combination of Belantamab Mafodotin, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone (B-Vd) Compared With the Combination of Daratumumab, Bortezomib and Dexamethasone (D-Vd) in Participants With Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma
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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The randomized, phase 3 DREAMM-7 trial (NCT04246047) previously demonstrated the efficacy and safety of belantamab mafodotin, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (BVd) versus daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (DVd) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) and ≥ 1 prior therapy. The results in the Japan expansion cohort of DREAMM-7, consisting of 24 patients randomized to receive BVd (N = 10) or DVd (N = 14), are presented here. The median follow-up was 19.4 months (range, 1.3-30.3). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached (NR; 95% CI, 7.0-NR) with BVd versus 11.1 months (95% CI, 4.9-NR) with DVd (PFS hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.11-1.52). The overall response rate was 90.0% (95% CI, 55.5-99.7) versus 71.4% (95% CI, 41.9-91.6); median duration of response was NR (95% CI, 9.7-NR) versus 14.5 months (95% CI, 3.5-NR). Safety trends in the Japan expansion cohort were similar to those in the global cohort. Ocular adverse reactions were more common with BVd and were manageable with dose modification. No new safety signals were reported. As in the global cohort, results in the Japan expansion cohort demonstrated the safety and efficacy of BVd in patients with RRMM and ≥ 1 prior therapy.
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.