MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2550956595 · doi:10.1182/blood.v126.23.258.258

Safety, Efficacy, and Determination of the Recommended Phase 2 Dose for the Oral Selective Inhibitor of Nuclear Export (SINE) Selinexor (KPT-330)

2015· article· en· W2550956595 on OpenAlexaff
Christine Chen, Ramiro Garzon, Martin Gutierrez, Meagan A. Jacoby, Peter de Nully Brown, Ian W. Flinn, Richard M. Stone, Mary Lynn Savoie, Rachid Baz, Nashat Gabrail, Michael Wang, Peter Martin, David S. Siegel, Morten Mau‐Sørensen, Michael Andreef, Tracey Marshall, Jean‐Richard Saint‐Martin, Robert Carlson, Sharon Shacham, Michael Kauffman, John Kuruvilla

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNuclear Structure and Function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of CalgaryPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTolerabilityNuclear export signalMedicinePopulationCancerPharmacologyCancer researchInternal medicineOncologyAdverse effectCell nucleus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: The nuclear export protein XPO1 is overexpressed in all types of hematological malignancies. The SINE selinexor (KPT-330) is a novel, first-in-class, slowly reversible XPO1 antagonist that forces the nuclear retention and activation of over tumor suppressor proteins (TSPs) such as p53, IkB, FOXO and p21. Forced nuclear retention of TSPs leads to their reactivation, which can counteract a multitude of oncogenic pathways that perpetuate the neoplastic phenotype. In addition, XPO1 inhibition prevents the eIF4e-mediated export of messenger mRNA for a variety of oncoproteins (FLT3, c-KIT, cyclin D1, c-MYC, Bcl2), leading to decreased expressed to further provide anti-cancer activity. An ongoing Phase 1 (NCT01607892) open label, dose escalation, multi-center study in hematological malignancies was designed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of selinexor as well as response rate as the secondary objective. A maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was not identified yet in this study, but based on the ongoing Phase1 study of selinexor in pts with solid tumors, a MTD of 65 mg/m2 twice weekly was determined. The goal of the analyses reported here was to identify the recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) based on both tolerability and efficacy in patients with heavily pretreated hematological malignancies. Methods: A subset (N=157) of the Phase 1 patient population received oral selinexor twice weekly (8 doses/28-d cycle). General clinical observations suggested that doses of selinexor >35 mg/m2 (> ~60 mg flat dose) are associated with suboptimal tolerability. Therefore, based on the actual dose administered, patients were divided into groups receiving 45-65 mg (median 60 mg; N=59) and >65 mg (70-160 mg; median 90 mg, N=98) for comparison of safety and efficacy endpoints. The majority of the patients have heavily pretreated myeloma, NHL, and AML. Results: 157 pts received 45-160 mg selinexor twice weekly (89 M/68 F, median age 66 yr; median 4 prior regimens). The most common adverse events (AEs) were fatigue (66%), nausea (64%), anorexia (55%), vomiting (38%), which were mostly gr 1/2, and thrombocytopenia (44%), which was mostly grade 3/4. Incidence of certain selinexor-related high grade (3/4) adverse events was greater in pts receiving >65 mg selinexor vs those receiving 45-65 mg (Table 1). Grade 3 nausea (4%), anorexia (3%), vomiting (3%) and hypokalemia (3%) were observed in the >65 mg group but were not seen in the 45-65 mg group. Grade 3 and 4 anemia were 19% vs 14% and 4% vs 2% for the >65 mg vs 45-65 mg groups, respectively. Grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia was similar in both groups, but slightly higher in the >65 mg group, with 8% and 24 % in the 45-65 mg group vs 12% and 27% in the >65 mg group. Neutropenia was also very similar in Grade 3 and 4 toxicity for both groups with 10% and 12% in the 45-65 mg group vs 11% and 10% in the >65 mg group. In contrast, high grade cataract was only seen in the 45-65 mg group (8%; 3 gr 3, 1 gr 4). Selinexor-induced weight loss, as compared to baseline, was maximal by the end of cycle 2 in both dose groups, without further loss through at least cycle 4, but the >65 mg group lost on average >5-fold more weight (average of 3.8 ± 1.1 kg vs 0.7 ± 0.1 kg in the 65 mg group from 56 d- 126 d; p<0.001). Also, pts in the 45-65 mg group remained on study longer (average of 101 d vs 69 d in the >65 mg group; p=0. 05). In contrast, overall efficacy in the two dose groups was comparable, with 5 complete responses (CRs, 10%) and an overall response rate (ORR) of 23% in the 45-65 mg group and 4 CRs (5%) and ORR of 24% in the >65 mg group. A listing of all responses for both groups can be seen in Table 2. Conclusions: While efficacy is comparable, doses of selinexor from 45-65 mg (median 60 mg) are better tolerated than doses >65 mg, based upon decreased weight loss, incidence of high grade AEs, and greater numbers of days on study. Based on this superior risk-benefit, a flat dose of 60 mg selinexor, twice weekly, is the RP2D for patients with hematological cancers. Similar results have been observed for solid tumors. Disclosures Chen: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Jacoby:Novo Nordisk: Consultancy; Sunesis: Research Funding. Stone:AROG: Consultancy; Celator: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Roche/Genetech: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy, Other: DSMB for clinical trial; Merck: Consultancy. Baz:Sanofi: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding. Gabrail:Sanofi: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; BI: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Onyx: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Wang:Celgene: Research Funding. Martin:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acerta: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. Siegel:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Merck: Speakers Bureau. Marshall:Karyopharm: Employment. Saint-Martin:Karyopharm: Employment. Carlson:Karyopharm: Employment. Shacham:Karyopharm: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kauffman:Karyopharm: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kuruvilla:Gilead: Consultancy; Hoffmann LaRoche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Lundbeck: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicNuclear Structure and FunctionFrench-language works237,207