Search

Introduction: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have substantially advanced the treatment of patients with malignant melanoma. However, improving therapeutic efficacy requires identifying drug combinations that elicit durable responses without inducing intolerable toxicity. Within that context, selinexor emerges as a possible combination option that has been shown in preclinical studies to enhance the efficacy of ICI therapy. Methods: In this phase 1b study, we investigated selinexor in combination with pembrolizumab in 25 patients with advanced non-uveal melanoma. Patients received selinexor at a dosage of 60 mg taken orally twice weekly, and pembrolizumab intravenously at a dosage of 200 mg every 3 weeks. Results: Despite the high incidence of adverse events (96%), most treatment-related toxicities were manageable with supportive care and dose reductions. The most common adverse events of any grade were nausea (n = 20; 80%), decreased white blood cell count (n = 15; 60%), vomiting (n = 14; 56%), anemia (n = 12; 48%), fatigue (n = 12; 48%), and decreased platelet count (n = 12; 48%). The 10 patients with treatment naïve evaluable disease had an objective response rate (ORR) of 70% (n = 7, including three patients with complete response), which was significantly higher than that of the 14 patients with prior anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (anti-PD-1) therapy, whose ORR was 7% (n = 1; p = 0.002). Stable disease was observed in two patients (20%) with treatment-naïve disease and seven patients (50%) with prior anti-PD-1 therapy. Conclusion: Selinexor combined with pembrolizumab showed promising antitumor activity in patients with treatment-naïve metastatic melanoma. The toxicity profile of the combination was consistent with that reported for individual agents, with no additional safety concerns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Immune checkpoint blockade has shown mixed results in advanced/recurrent gynecologic malignancies. Efficacy may be improved through costimulation with OX40 and 4‐1BB agonists. The authors sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of avelumab combined with utomilumab (a 4‐1BB agonist), PF‐04518600 (an OX40 agonist), and radiotherapy in patients with recurrent gynecologic malignancies. Methods: The primary end point in this six‐arm, phase 1/2 trial was safety of the combination regimens. Secondary end points included the objective response rate (ORR) according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors and immune‐related Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, the disease control rate (DCR), the duration of response, progression‐free survival, and overall survival. Results: Forty patients were included (35% with cervical cancer, 30% with endometrial cancer, and 35% with ovarian cancer). Most patients (n = 33; 83%) were enrolled in arms A–C (no radiation). Among 35 patients who were evaluable for efficacy, the ORR was 2.9%, and the DCR was 37.1%, with a median duration of stable disease of 5.4 months (interquartile range, 4.1–7.3 months). Patients with cervical cancer in arm A (avelumab and utomilumab; n = 9 evaluable patients) achieved an ORR of 11% and a DCR of 78%. The median progression‐free survival was 2.1 months (95% CI, 1.8–3.5 months), and overall survival was 9.4 months (95% CI, 5.6–11.9 months). No dose‐limiting toxicities or grade 3–5 immune‐related adverse events were observed. Conclusions: The findings from this trial highlight that, in heavily pretreated patients with gynecologic cancer, even multidrug regimens targeting multiple immunologic pathways, although safe, did not produce significant responses. A DCR of 78% in patients with cervical cancer who received avelumab and utomilumab indicates that further research on this combination in select patients may be warranted. In a phase 1/2 trial of heavily pretreated patients who had recurrent gynecologic cancers, avelumab in combination with a 4‐1BB agonist, an OX40 agonist, and/or radiation was safe and had a similar rate of immune‐related adverse events compared with single‐agent immune checkpoint blockade. The combination of multiple immune‐modulating agents, however, did not result in increased efficacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]