MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3097818908 · doi:10.1182/blood-2020-137154

Once Weekly Selinexor, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone (SVd) Versus Twice Weekly Bortezomib and Dexamethasone (Vd) in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: High-Risk Cytogenetic Risk Planned Subgroup Analyses from the Phase 3 Boston Study

2020· article· en· W3097818908 on OpenAlexaff
Shambavi Richard, Ajai Chari, Sosana Delimpasi, Maryana Simonova, Ivan Špıčka, Luděk Pour, Irina Kryachok, Meletios Α. Dimopoulos, Halyna Pylypenko, Holger W. Auner, Xavier Leleu, Vadim Doronin, Ganna Usenko, Roman Hájek, Reuben Benjamin, Tuphan Kanti Dolai, Dinesh Kumar Sinha, Christopher P. Venner, Mamta Garg, Don A. Stevens, Hang Quach, Sundar Jagannath, Philippe Moreau, Moshe Levy, Ashraf Badros, Larry D. Anderson, Nizar J. Bahlis, Thierry Façon, María‐Victoria Mateos, Michèle Cavo, Hua Chang, Yosef Landesman, Anita Joshi, Yi Chai, Melina Arazy, Jatin J. Shah, Sharon Shacham, Michael Kauffman, Sebastian Grosicki, Paul G. Richardson

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Cancer ResearchUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBortezomibDexamethasoneMultiple myelomaMedicineOncologyInternal medicineRefractory (planetary science)Biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Despite recent advances, there remains an unmet need for novel therapies to improve outcomes and abrogate the adverse effects of high-risk cytogenetics in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). In patients with triple class refractory MM in the Phase 2b STORM study, the clinical benefit of selinexor plus low dose dexamethasone (sel-dex) was preserved across high-risk cytogenetic subgroups, supporting further evaluation of selinexor combined with other anti-MM therapies (Nooka et al. ASH 2019). The phase 3 BOSTON study evaluated the combination of weekly sel-dex with the proteasome inhibitor (PI) bortezomib (SVd) against standard twice weekly bortezomib-dex (Vd) in patients with MM who had received 1-3 prior therapies. SVd significantly improved progression free survival (PFS), time to next therapy (TTNT), overall response rate (ORR) and depth of response (≥VGPR), while inducing less overall and grade ≥2 peripheral neuropathy (PN) compared with Vd. Here, we present the results of prespecified subgroup analyses from the BOSTON study according to cytogenetic risk status. Methods: In the BOSTON study, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to once weekly oral sel (100 mg) plus once weekly subcutaneous (SC) bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2) and dex (20 mg BIW) in the SVd arm or twice weekly SC bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2) and dex (20 mg QIW) in the Vd arm. Treatment was administered in both arms until disease progression. The primary endpoint was PFS, as assessed by an Independent Review Committee (IRC). Central FISH analyses were performed on CD138+ sorted cells from bone marrow aspirates collected at screening. The high-risk group consisted of patients with at least 1 of the following abnormalities: del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16), and amplification of 1q21 in ≥10% of screened plasma cells with amp (1q21) requiring ≥3 copies. The standard-risk group consisted of all other patients with available and known baseline cytogenetics. Results: Of the 402 enrolled patients, 192 (48%) had high-risk (SVd=97, Vd=95) and 210 (52%) had standard-risk (SVd=98, Vd=112) cytogenetics. Baseline patient and disease characteristics were well balanced across treatment arms. SVd significantly improved PFS relative to Vd in the high-risk (12.9 vs 8.1 months; HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.45-0.98; P=0.0192) and standard-risk (16.6 vs 9.7 months; HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.42-0.95; P=0.0131) groups. Time to next treatment was significantly increased with SVd in the high-risk (14.6 vs 8.7 months; P=0.0049) and standard risk groups (NR vs 13.1 months; P=0.0158). The ORR was significantly improved with SVd in the high-risk group (77.3% vs 55.8%; P=0.0008) and numerically improved in the standard-risk group (75.5% vs 67.9%; P=0.11) with comparable rates between the high-risk and standard-risk groups in the SVd arm. Very good partial response or better was achieved in 42.3% patients on SVd versus 24.2% on Vd (P=0.0041) and 46.9% on SVd versus 39.3% on Vd (P=0.13) in the high-risk and standard-risk groups, respectively. Overall survival was 23.5 months in the high-risk group in the Vd arm and was not reached in the other groups. Efficacy by specific cytogenetics abnormalities in the high-risk subgroup is shown in the table below. PFS and ORR were improved with SVd compared with Vd across all subgroups except t(14;16) which was the smallest subgroup (N=18, 4% of the study population). There were 61 deaths in the high-risk group (SVd=27 and Vd=34) versus 48 in the standard-risk group (SVd=20 and Vd=28). The safety profiles of SVd and Vd in the high-risk and standard-risk groups were consistent with the overall population. Rate of grade ≥2 peripheral neuropathy was lower with SVd compared with Vd in both the high-risk (26.8% vs 32.3%; P=0.18) and standard-risk groups (15.3% vs 36.0%; P=0.0003). Conclusions: These prespecified subgroup analyses from the BOSTON study demonstrate that despite utilizing 40% less bortezomib and 25% less dexamethasone during the first 24-weeks of treatment, SVd is superior to Vd in patients with MM including high-risk patients. The PFS benefit was particularly notable in patients with del(17p), t(4;14) and amp(1q21) abnormalities. The ORR was comparable between the high-risk and standard-risk groups in the SVd arm. These data support the use of selinexor, with its novel mechanism of action, in the treatment of patients with early relapsed MM, including those with high risk cytogenetic abnormalities. Figure 1 Disclosures Chari: Secura Bio: Consultancy; Novartis: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnology: Honoraria; The Binding Site: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array BioPharma: Honoraria; Glaxo Smith Kline: Consultancy. Delimpasi:GENESIS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Spicka:Celgene, Amgen, Janssen-Cilag, Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kryachok:Takeda, Janssen: Consultancy; Janssen, Bayer, Karyopharm, MSD, Acerta, AvbbVie, Debiopharm: Research Funding; Takeda, Janssen, Novartis, Roche, MSD, Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda, MSD, AbbVie, Ro: Other: Travel, accommodations, expenses. Dimopoulos:BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Auner:Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Leleu:Oncopeptide: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Carsgen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; BMS-celgene: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Hajek:Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharma MAR: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Sinha:Dr Reddys Lab, Intas Pharmaceuticals, Karyopharm Therapeutics: Honoraria. Venner:Janssen, BMS/Celgene, Sanofi, Takeda, Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene, Amgen: Research Funding. Garg:Janssen, Takeda, Celgene, Novartis, Sanofi: Honoraria. Stevens:Amgen, MorphoSys: Consultancy. Quach:GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen Cilag: Consultancy; Amgen, Celgene, karyopharm, GSK, Janssen Cilag, Sanofi.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen, sanofi, celgene, Karyopharm, GSK: Research Funding. Jagannath:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Legend Biotech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria. Moreau:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Levy:Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Baylor University Med Center: Current Employment; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Badros:University of Maryland: Current Employment; Amgen: Consultancy. Anderson:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Bahlis:Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS/Celgene and Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Facon:Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Amgen, Roche, Karyopharm, Oncopeptides, BMS, Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committ

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments→French-language works237,207→