Selinexor in Combination with Bortezomib and Dexamethasone (SdB) Demonstrates Significant Activity in Patients with Refractory Multiple Myeloma (MM) Including Proteasome-Inhibitor Refractory Patients: Results of the Phase I Stomp Trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction - Selinexor is a first-in-class Selective Inhibitor of Nuclear Export (SINE) compound that binds and inactivates Exportin 1 (XPO1). Selinexor with low dose dexamethasone (dex) has demonstrated potent anti-cancer activity in patients with heavily pretreated MM. While the development of proteasome inhibitors (PIs) has transformed the treatment of MM, acquired resistance to PIs limit their efficacy. Preclinical studies have shown that selinexor, when combined with bortezomib, can restore sensitivity of bortezomib-resistant MM to this drug, inducing tumor growth inhibition and increasing survival in MM models in mice. In this clinical trial (NCT02343042), we investigated the safety, tolerability and efficacy of the combination of selinexor, bortezomib and low dose dex (SdB) in patients (pts) with refractory MM. Methods - This phase 1b/2 dose escalation study using a standard 3+3 design, was designed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) for SdB. The study included pts with refractory MM, after ≥ 1 prior therapy. Pts with prior PI relapsed and/or refractory disease were included, provided the patient's MM was not refractory to bortezomib as last therapy. Selinexor was independently dosed escalated in once-weekly (QW, starting at 80 mg; N=7, 100 mg N=6 pts) or twice-weekly (BIW, starting at 60 mg; N=3, 80 mg N=6 pts) regimens. Bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2 sc) was administered either once-weekly or twice-weekly and dex was given orally 40 mg QW or 20 mg BIW. Results - As of July 25th, 2016, enrollment in the dose escalation cohorts has been completed with 22 pts (12 male /10 female). The median age is 65 years (range, 46 - 74), with a median of 4 (range, 1 - 12) prior treatment regimens. One dose limiting toxicity (Grade 4 thrombocytopenia without bleeding) in the 80 mg BIW cohort was observed but the MTD has not been reached. Common related grade 1/2 adverse events (AEs) include: fatigue 41%, nausea 41%, anorexia 36%, and weight loss 18%. Grade 3/4 AEs include: thrombocytopenia 41%, anemia 18%, and neutropenia 18%. One case of grade 1 peripheral neuropathy in the 80 mg BIW cohort was reported. All pts were evaluable for response. The ORR (≥partial response, PR) was 77% with ≥VGPR 27% (1 pt in CR and 5 pts in VGPR) and 11 PRs. There were 3 minor responses (14%), 1 stable disease, 1 progressive disease (5% each). Seven of the 12 pts with PI-refractory MM responded (ORR 58%). A summary of response by PI treatment history is shown in Table 1. Ten patients have remained on study >4 months, including 7 patients still on trial (longest >9 months). Based on tolerability and anti-MM activity, RP2D of SdB is selinexor 100 mg, bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 and dex 40 mg, all given once weekly. At the RP2D, all six pts achieved ≥PR (ORR 100%). Conclusions - Selinexor in combination with bortezomib and dex is well tolerated and highly active in refractory MM. Toxicities are manageable and similar to selinexor or bortezomib monotherapy. Peripheral neuropathy is uncommon, consistent with the use of weekly bortezomib sc and the lack of neuropathy with selinexor. Overall, the SdB regimens induced an ORR of 77% with ≥VGPR of 27%. In patients with PI-refractory MM, the ORR was 58%, indicating that the addition of selinexor restores sensitivity to bortezomib. These results confirm the preclinical data supporting synergistic effects of selinexor when combined with PIs. This promising, once-weekly treatment regimen may provide deeper and more durable responses in pts with relapsed / refractory MM, including those with PI-refractory disease. Table 1. Best Response by Prior Proteasome Inhibitor (PI) Treatment Status Table 1. Best Response by Prior Proteasome Inhibitor (PI) Treatment Status Disclosures Bahlis: Onyx: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria. Sebag:Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Sutherland:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. White:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Venner:Amgen: Honoraria; J+J: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Kouroukis:Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding. McCurdy:Celgene: Honoraria. Lalancette:BMS: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Bensinger:Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Acetylon: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Lentzsch:BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kauffman:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shacham:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jeha:Karyopharm: Employment. Picklesimer:Karyopharm: Employment. Saint-Martin:Karyopharm: Employment. Choe-Juliak:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Employment. Chen:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».