Background: Belamaf, a BCMA-targeted antibody drug conjugate, has previously demonstrated clinical activity and a manageable safety profile, supporting its use in combination with standard-of-care (SoC) therapies in RRMM. DREAMM-7 (NCT04246047) is a global, randomized, open-label, phase III head-to-head trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of BVd triplet vs SoC triplet, DVd, in patients (pts) with RRMM with ≥1 prior line of therapy (LOT). Methods: Pts with ≥1 prior LOT were randomized (1:1) to BVd: B 2.5 mg/kg IV Q3W + V 1.3 mg/m² (D1, 4, 8, 11 of 21-day cycles (C); up to 8 C) + d 20 mg (D1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12; up to 8 C) or DVd: D 16 mg/kg (21-day C), C1-3, Q1W, C4-8, Q3W, and Q4W from C 9 on); V and d schedules were the same. The primary endpoint was independent review committee-assessed progression free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints available include overall survival (OS), duration of response (DOR), overall response rate (ORR). Results: 494 pts were randomized (BVd n = 243, DVd n = 251). With a median (range) follow-up of 28.2 mo (0.10-40 mo), the median PFS (mPFS) in the BVd arm was 36.6 mo (95% CI, 28.4 mo-NR) vs 13.4 mo (11.1-17.5 mo) with DVd; hazard ratio (HR) 0.41 (95% CI, 0.31-0.53; p < 0.00001). OS data was 29% mature; median OS was not reached in either arm; HR, 0.57 (95% CI, 0.40-0.80; nominal p < 0.0005). ORR was 82.7% (95% CI, 77.4-87.3%) with BVd and 71.3% (65.3-76.8%) with DVd. Median DOR (mDOR) was 35.6 mo (95% CI, 30.5 mo-NR) for BVd vs 17.8 mo (13.8-23.6 mo) for DVd. All pts in both arms experienced ≥1 AE (Table). Grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs (TRAE) were reported in 90% of pts in the BVd arm and 67% with DVd. Serious AEs (SAE) were reported in 50% of pts in BVd vs 37% in DVd arm. Ocular AEs were more frequent on BVd vs DVd (79% vs 29%) and were manageable. Conclusions: The DREAMM-7 head-to-head study of BVd vs DVd demonstrated statistically significant PFS benefit of BVd with a mPFS improvement of 23 mo in pts with RRMM with ≥1 prior LOT. A strong and clinically meaningful OS benefit (nominal p < 0.0005) was observed. Additionally, BVd led to greater depth of response and doubling of mDOR vs DVd and had a manageable safety profile. These results support BVd as a potential new SoC in this setting. Clinical trial information: NCT04246047.

CR, complete response; PR, partial response; VGPR, very good PR. ^aConfirmed ≥PR. ^bBased on safety analysis set (BVd = 242; DVd = 246). ^cPer CTCAE v5.