MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2989730327 · doi:10.1182/blood-2019-122907

Selinexor, Pomalidomide, and Dexamethasone (SPd) in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma

2019· article· en· W2989730327 sur OpenAlexaff
Christine I. Chen, Nizar J. Bahlis, Cristina Gasparetto, Sascha A. Tuchman, Brea Lipe, Muhamed Baljević, Rami Kotb, Heather J. Sutherland, William Bensinger, Michaël Sébag, Richard LeBlanc, Christopher P. Venner, Gary J. Schiller, Suzanne Lentzsch, Natalie S. Callander, Heidi Sheehan, Yi Chai, Kazuharu Kai, Jatin J. Shah, Sharon Shacham, Michael Kauffman, Darrell White

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueNuclear Structure and Function
Établissements canadiensQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontVancouver General HospitalCancerCare ManitobaUniversity of CalgaryDalhousie UniversityRoyal Victoria HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPomalidomideDexamethasoneMultiple myelomaMedicineRefractory (planetary science)CarfilzomibLenalidomideInternal medicineOncologyBiology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: The nuclear export protein exportin 1 (XPO1) is overexpressed in a wide variety of cancers including multiple myeloma (MM) and associated with poor prognosis. Selinexor is a first-in-class Selective Inhibitor of Nuclear Export (SINE) compound that selectively binds and inactivates XPO1, therefore forces the nuclear retention and re-activation of cell cycle regulators such as p53, FOXO, IkB, and Rb. Selinexor in combination with low dose dexamethasone (Sel-dex) was recently approved based on data from the STORM study, wherein Sel-dex induced an overall response rate (ORR) of 26.2% in patients with penta-exposed, triple-class refractory multiple myeloma. Pomalidomide/dexamethasone achieved an ORR of 31% and progression-free survival (PFS) rate of < 4 months in patients refractory to prior bortezomib and lenalidomide. We conducted the STOMP study to assess the efficacy and safety of the combination of selinexor, pomalidomide and dexamethasone (SPd) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Methods: STOMP is a multicenter, open-label, phase 1/2b, dose escalation study with an expansion phase. Patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who received prior therapies including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor were eligible for enrollment. Oral selinexor was evaluated in 2 different dosing schedules: once-weekly (QW, 60 or 80 mg) or twice-weekly (BIW, 60 or 80 mg), with escalating doses of pomalidomide 2, 3 or 4 mg PO (days 1-21), and low dose dexamethasone 20 mg BIW or 40 mg QW. The primary objectives of the study were to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), and to assess the safety, tolerability, and preliminary efficacy of the combination of SPd in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Results: As of July 01 2019, 48 patients (26 male and 22 female) were enrolled. The median age was 64 years (range:43-83 years). Patients received a median of 4 (range: 2-13) prior treatment regimens. Forty patients (83%) received prior autologous stem cell transplantation (one patient received prior autologous and allogenic stem cell transplantation). The phase 1 dose escalation enrollment is now complete. Across all cohorts, eight dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) were observed (Table 1). Common hematologic treatment related adverse events (TRAE) included (Grades 1/2, Grades ≥3): neutropenia (8%, 54%), thrombocytopenia (21%, 33%), anemia (17%, 29%) and leukopenia (13%, 15%). Common non-hematologic TRAE included: nausea (56%, 0%), fatigue (40%, 10%), decreased appetite (46%, 0%), weight decreased (33%, 0%), diarrhea (27%, 0%), vomiting (21%, 2%). Lower rates of ≥ Grade 3 thrombocytopenia (27% vs 44%) and anemia (20% vs 44%) were observed in QW dosing vs BIW dosing. Out of 48 patients, 44 were evaluable for response (27 patients lenalidomide refractory/pom naive, 4 patients lenalidomide treated/pom naïve, 13 patients refractory to pomalidomide and lenalidomide, and 19 patients refractory to lenalidomide and bortezomib). Among patients who were pomalidomide naive (N=31), the ORR was 58% (7 very good partial responses and 11 partial responses) and the median PFS was 12.2 months. Among patients refractory to lenalidomide/pomalidomide (N=13) the ORR was 31% (4 partial responses) and the median PFS was 4.2 months. Conclusions: The all oral SPd combination is durable and active with an ORR of 58% in patients with disease that is lenalidomide refractory and pomalidomide naïve compared to previously published data of 31% ORR for pomalidomide/dexamethasone in a similar patient population. The median PFS on SPd of 12.2 months in pomalidomide naïve patients is longer than that observed with pomalidomide/dexamethasone (<4 months). No unexpected adverse events were noted. Selinexor QW demonstrated a manageable side effects with ≤2% Grade 3/4 nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, weight decreased and decreased appetite suggesting that the side effects of selinexor are a function of the dose and schedule. This observed activity and manageable side effect profile with QW selinexor in combination with pom/dex supports further studies. Disclosures Chen: Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Bahlis:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Gasparetto:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed ; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed ; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed . Tuchman:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Alnylam: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Prothena: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Lipe:Celgene: Consultancy; amgen: Consultancy; amgen: Research Funding. Baljevic:Cardinal Health Specialty Solutions: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Other: Internal Review Committee participant; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kotb:Celgene: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Equity Ownership; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Bensinger:Takeda, Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Merck, Karyopharm: Other: Grant; Amgen, Celgene: Other: Personal Fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Sebag:Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Leblanc:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Venner:Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; J&J: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria. Schiller:Biomed Valley Discoveries: Research Funding; Bristol Myer Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Constellation Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Eli Lilly and Company: Research Funding; FujiFilm: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; J&J: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Amgen: Other, Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; Pfizer Pharmaceuticals: Equity Ownership, Research Funding; Sangamo Therapeutics: Research Funding. Lentzsch:Bayer: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Proclara: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Clinical Care Options: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation: Honoraria; International Myeloma Foundation: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Columbia University: Patents & Royalties: 11-1F4mAb as anti-amyloid strategy; Caelum Biosciences: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sheehan:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chai:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kai:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Shah:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Shacham:Karyopharm Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties. Kauffman:Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. White:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria.

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai randomisé · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,001
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,005

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,003
Tête enseignante GPT0,184
Écart entre enseignants0,181 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeEssai randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations24
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetNuclear Structure and Function→Travaux en français237 207→