Efficacy and safety of once weekly selinexor 40 mg versus 60 mg with pomalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To identify the optimal dose of selinexor in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone (SPd). Methods: An analysis of efficacy and safety of 2 once-weekly selinexor regimens (60 mg and 40 mg) with pomalidomide and dexamethasone (SPd-60 and SPd-40, respectively) given to patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in the STOMP (NCT02343042) and XPORT-MM-028 (NCT04414475) trials. Results: Twenty-eight patients (60.7% males, median age 67.5 years) and 20 patients (35.0% males, median age 65.5 years) were analyzed in the SPd-40 and SPd-60 cohorts, respectively. Overall response rate was 50% (95% confidence interval [CI] 30.6-69.4%) and 65% (95% CI 40.8-84.6%), respectively. Very good partial response or better was reported in 28.6% (95% CI 13.2-48.7%) and 30.0% (95% CI 11.9-54.3%) of patients, respectively. Among 27 responders in both cohorts, the 12-month sustained response rate was 83.3% (95% CI 64.7-100.0%) for SPd-40 and 28.1% (95% CI 8.9-88.8%) for SPd-60. Median progression-free survival was 18.4 months (95% CI 6.5 months, not evaluable [NE]) and 9.5 months (95% CI 7.6 months-NE) for SPd-40 and SPd-60, respectively. Twenty-four-month survival rates were 64.2% (95% CI 47.7-86.3%) for SPd-40 and 51.1% (95% CI 29.9-87.5%) for SPd-60. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) included neutropenia (all grades: SPd-40 64.3% versus SPd-60 75.0%), anemia (46.4% versus 65.0%), thrombocytopenia (42.9% versus 45.0%), fatigue (46.4% versus 75.0%), nausea (32.1% versus 70.0%) and diarrhea (28.6% versus 35.0%). Conclusion: The all-oral combination of SPd exhibited preliminary signs of efficacy and was generally tolerable in patients with RRMM. The overall risk-benefit profile favored the SPd-40 regimen.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".