Search

Therapeutic regimens for previously treated multiple myeloma (MM) may not provide prolonged disease control and are often complicated by significant adverse events, including peripheral neuropathy. In patients with previously treated MM in the Phase 3 BOSTON study, once weekly selinexor, once weekly bortezomib, and 40 mg dexamethasone (XVd) demonstrated a significantly longer median progression-free survival (PFS), higher response rates, deeper responses, a trend to improved survival, and reduced incidence and severity of bortezomib-induced peripheral neuropathy when compared with standard twice weekly bortezomib and 80 mg dexamethasone (Vd). The pre-specified analyses described here evaluated the influence of the number of prior lines of therapy, prior treatment with lenalidomide, prior proteasome inhibitor (PI) therapy, prior immunomodulatory drug therapy, and prior autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) on the efficacy and safety of XVd compared with Vd. In this 1:1 randomized study, enrolled patients were assigned to receive once weekly oral selinexor (100 mg) with once weekly subcutaneous bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2) and 40 mg per week dexamethasone (XVd) versus standard twice weekly bortezomib and 80 mg per week dexamethasone (Vd). XVd significantly improved PFS, overall response rate, time-to-next-treatment, and showed reduced all grade and grade ≥ 2 peripheral neuropathy compared with Vd regardless of prior treatments, but the benefits of XVd over Vd were more pronounced in patients treated earlier in their disease course who had either received only one prior therapy, had never been treated with a PI, or had prior ASCT. Treatment with XVd improved outcomes as compared to Vd regardless of prior therapies as well as manageable and generally reversible adverse events. XVd was associated with clinical benefit and reduced peripheral neuropathy compared to standard Vd in previously treated MM. These results suggest that the once weekly XVd regimen may be optimally administered to patients earlier in their course of disease, as their first bortezomib-containing regimen, and in those relapsing after ASCT. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03110562). Registered 12 April 2017. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03110562. © 2021, The Author(s).

In the phase 3 BOSTON study, patients with multiple myeloma (MM) after 1–3 prior regimens were randomized to once-weekly selinexor (an oral inhibitor of exportin 1 [XPO1]) plus bortezomib-dexamethasone (XVd) or twice-weekly bortezomib-dexamethasone (Vd). Compared with Vd, XVd was associated with significant improvements in median progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), and lower rates of peripheral neuropathy, with trends in overall survival (OS) favoring XVd. In BOSTON, 141 (35.1%) patients had MM with high-risk (presence of del[17p], t[4;14], t[14;16], or ≥4 copies of amp1q21) cytogenetics (XVd, n = 70; Vd, n = 71), and 261 (64.9%) exhibited standard-risk cytogenetics (XVd, n = 125; Vd, n = 136). Among patients with high-risk MM, median PFS was 12.91 months for XVd and 8.61 months for Vd (HR, 0.73 [95% CI, (0.4673, 1.1406)], p = 0.082), and ORRs were 78.6% and 57.7%, respectively (OR 2.68; p = 0.004). In the standard-risk subgroup, median PFS was 16.62 months for XVd and 9.46 months for Vd (HR 0.61; p = 0.004), and ORRs were 75.2% and 64.7%, respectively (OR 1.65; p = 0.033). The safety profiles of XVd and Vd in both subgroups were consistent with the overall population. These data suggest that selinexor can confer benefits to patients with MM regardless of cytogenetic risk. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03110562. © 2021 The Authors. American Journal of Hematology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Elderly and frail patients with multiple myeloma (MM) are more vulnerable to the toxicity of combination therapies, often resulting in treatment modifications and suboptimal outcomes. The phase 3 BOSTON study showed that once-weekly selinexor and bortezomib with low-dose dexamethasone (XVd) improved PFS and ORR compared with standard twice-weekly bortezomib and moderate-dose dexamethasone (Vd) in patients with previously treated MM. This is a retrospective subgroup analysis of the multicenter, prospective, randomized BOSTON trial. Post hoc analyses were performed to compare XVd versus Vd safety and efficacy according to age and frailty status (

The present study aimed to summarize the literature data about wounds to the dural venous sinus (DVS) and validating the importance of surgery in a series of clinical observations in patients with craniocerebral gunshot wound (CGW) sustained in battles with the DVS wound.Materials and methods. We conducted a retrospective analysis of the clinical records and long-term outcomes in patients who were admitted to our medical center from 05/2014 to 12/2017. The study included soldiers with gunshot DVS wounds sustained in battles, who presented with the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score ≥4. Upon admission, damage to the DVS was diagnosed based on spiral computed tomography (SCT) imaging and/or was identified during surgery. All the patients underwent SCT imaging on admission and 12 hours after surgery. When severe damage to the DVS was suspected, cerebral angiography (CAG) was performed. The age, initial GCS score, the Injury Severity Score, location and nature of injuries to the DVS, the location and nature of brain injury, the volume of surgical interventions and the presence of complications in a postoperative period were taken into account. The outcome data included an assessment of the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) in 6 and 12 months.Results. Of 241 patients with CGW sustained in battles, 21 (8.7 %) presented with wounds to the DVS. The average initial GCS score was 10.0 ± 3.7. Superior sagittal sinus wound was identified in 20 (95.2%) patients and straight sinus wound – in one (4.8 %) patient. Wound to one DVS wall was identified in 15 (68.2 %) cases, wound to two DVS walls – in five (22.7 %) cases, and complete DVS damage (transection) – in two (9.1 %) cases. Twenty (95.2 %) patients presented with DVS wound combined with brain injury: one in the lobe in 10 (47.6 %) patients and ≥2 lobes in 10 (47.6 %) patients. All the patients underwent surgery. CAG was performed in five (23.8 %) patients. DVS ligation was performed in four (19 %) patients.Five (23.8 %) patients had meningitis, three (14.3 %) patients died. After 6 months, five (23.8 %) patients recovered well (GOS score of 5), 12 (57.1 %) had moderate disability (GOS of 4), and one (4.8%) had severe disability. The significant factors of good outcome within 6 months after the injury were age (P = 0.04) and GCS score on admission (P = 0.01).Conclusions. The DVS repair via surgery in case of concomitant brain matter injury must be performed very cautiously because of a high risk of developing hemorrhagic complications due to early use of anticoagulants. The feasibility of surgical DVS repair in case of transection can be assessed in large neurosurgical centers for such pathology management to obtain more data., Цель работы – обобщение имеющихся данных литературы и обоснование правильности выбранной тактики лечения в представленной серии клинических наблюдений у пациентов с ранением дуральных венозных синусов (ДВС) при боевых огнестрельных черепно-мозговых ранениях (БОЧМР).Материалы и методы. Выполнен ретроспективный анализ данных медицинских карт и отдаленных исходов лечения с мая 2014 г. по декабрь 2017 г. В исследование включены военнослужащие с БОЧМР с ранением ДВС с уровнем сознания по шкале ком Глазго (ШКГ) 4 балла и более при поступлении. Всем пациентам выполнена СКТ головного мозга (ГМ) при поступлении в течение 12 часов после операции. При подозрении на тяжелое повреждение ДВС проведена церебральная ангиография (ЦАГ). Учитывали возраст, уровень сознания по ШКГ, значение Injury Severity Score (ISS), локализацию, характер ранения ДВС, локализацию и характер повреждений ГМ, объем оперативных вмешательств, наличие осложнений в послеоперационном периоде. Данные исхода включали оценку по шкале исходов Глазго (ШИГ) через 6 и 12 месяцев.Результаты. Из 241 мужчин с БОЧМР у 21 (8,7 %) диагностировано ранение ДВС. Среднее значение по ШКГ при поступлении – 10,0 ± 3,7 балла. Ранение верхнего сагиттального синуса установлено у 20 больных (95,2 %), прямого синуса – у одного (4,8 %). Ранение одной стенки синуса диагностировано в 15 (68,2 %) случаях, двух стенок ДВС – в 5 (22,7 %), полное повреждение ДВС (трансекция) – в 2 (9,1 %) случаях. В 20 (95,2 %) случаях ранение ДВС сочеталось с повреждением ГМ. ЦАГ выполнена в 5 (23,8 %) случаях. Перевязка ДВС выполнена в 4 (19 %) случаях. Менингит развился в 5 (23,8 %) случаях. Умерли 3 (14,3 %) пациента. Хорошее восстановление (ШИГ 5 баллов) через 12 месяцев – у 8 (38,1 %) пациентов, умеренная инвалидизация (ШИГ 4 балла) через 12 месяцев – у 10 (47,6 %). Факторами, статистически значимыми для хорошего исхода через 6 мес. с момента ранения, были возраст больного (р = 0,04) и оценка по ШКГ при поступлении (р = 0,01).Выводы. Хирургическое восстановление ДВС при сочетанном повреждении ГМ необходимо выполнять с осторожностью из-за высокого риска развития геморрагических осложнений при раннем применении антикоагулянтов. Целесообразность хирургического восстановления ДВС в случае пересечения может быть оценена в крупных нейрохирургических центрах, занимающихся такой патологией, при большей выборке., Мета роботи – узагальнення наявних даних літератури та обґрунтування правильності обраної тактики лікування в наведеній серії клінічних спостережень у пацієнтів із пораненням дуральних венозних синусів (ДВС) при бойових вогнепальних черепно-мозкових пораненнях (БВЧМП).Матеріали та методи. Виконали ретроспективний аналіз даних медичних карт і віддалених результатів лікування з травня 2014 р. до грудня 2017 р. У дослідження залучили військовослужбовців із БВЧМП із пораненням ДВС із початковим рівнем свідомості за шкалою ком Глазго (ШКГ) 4 бали і більше. Усім пацієнтам здійснили спіральну комп’ютерну томографію головного мозку (ГМ) при надходженні та протягом 12 годин після операції. Якщо виникало припущення про тяжке ушкодження ДВС, виконували церебральну ангіографію (ЦАГ). Враховували вік, початкові значення за ШКГ, значення Injury Severity Score, локалізацію, характер поранення ДВС, локалізацію та характер пошкоджень ГМ, обсяг оперативних втручань, наявність ускладнень у післяопераційному періоді. Результати включали оцінювання за шкалою наслідків Глазго (ШНГ) через 6 і 12 місяців.Результати. Із 241 поранених із БВЧМП у 21 (8,7 %) діагностували поранення ДВС. Середнє значення за ШКГ при надходженні – 10,0 ± 3,7 бала. Поранення верхнього сагітального синуса виявили у 20 (95,2 %) хворих, прямого синуса – в одного (4,8 %). Поранення однієї стінки синуса виявили в 15 (68,2 %) випадках, двох стінок ДВС – у 5 (22,7 %), повне пошкодження ДВС (трансекція) – у двох (9,1 %) випадках. У 20 (95,2 %) випадках поранення ДВС поєднувалося з ушкодженням ГМ. ЦАГ виконали у 5 (23,8 %) випадках. Перев’язку ДВС виконали в 4 (19,0 %) випадках. Менінгіт розвинувся в 5 (23,8 %) випадках. Померли 3 (14,3 %) пацієнти. Гарне відновлення (ШНГ 5 балів) через 12 місяців – у 8 (38,1 %) пацієнтів, помірна інвалідизація (ШНГ 4 бали) через 12 місяців – у 10 (47,6 %). Факторами, статистично значущими для позитивного результату через 6 місяців від часу поранення, були вік хворого (р = 0,04) та оцінювання за ШКГ при надходженні (р = 0,01).Висновки. Хірургічне відновлення ДВС при одночасному пошкодженні ГМ необхідно виконувати з обережністю через високий ризик геморагічних ускладнень при ранньому застосуванні антикоагулянтів. Доцільність хірургічного відновлення ДВС у разі перетину може бути оцінена у великих нейрохірургічних центрах, які займаються такою патологією, при більшій вибірці.

Background: Selinexor combined with dexamethasone has shown activity in patients with heavily pre-treated multiple myeloma. In a phase 1b/2 study, the combination of oral selinexor with bortezomib (a proteasome inhibitor) and dexamethasone induced high response rates with low rates of peripheral neuropathy, the main dose-limiting toxicity of bortezomib. We aimed to evaluate the clinical benefit of weekly selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone versus standard bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma. Methods: This phase 3, randomised, open-label trial was done at 123 sites in 21 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older, who had multiple myeloma, and who had previously been treated with one to three lines of therapy, including proteasome inhibitors, were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive selinexor (100 mg once per week), bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 once per week), and dexamethasone (20 mg twice per week), or bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 twice per week for the first 24 weeks and once per week thereafter) and dexamethasone (20 mg four times per week for the first 24 weeks and twice per week thereafter). Randomisation was done using interactive response technology and stratified by previous proteasome inhibitor therapy, lines of treatment, and multiple myeloma stage. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included in the safety population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03110562. The trial is ongoing, with 55 patients remaining on randomised therapy as of Feb 20, 2020. Findings: Of 457 patients screened for eligibility, 402 were randomly allocated—195 (49%) to the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group and 207 (51%) to the bortezomib and dexamethasone group—and the first dose of study medication was given between June 6, 2017, and Feb 5, 2019. Median follow-up durations were 13·2 months [IQR 6·2–19·8] for the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group and 16·5 months [9·4–19·8] for the bortezomib and dexamethasone group. Median progression-free survival was 13·93 months (95% CI 11·73–not evaluable) with selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone and 9·46 months (8·11–10·78) with bortezomib and dexamethasone (hazard ratio 0·70 [95% CI 0·53–0·93], p=0·0075). The most frequent grade 3–4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (77 [39%] of 195 patients in the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group vs 35 [17%] of 204 in the bortezomib and dexamethasone group), fatigue (26 [13%] vs two [1%]), anaemia (31 [16%] vs 20 [10%]), and pneumonia (22 [11%] vs 22 [11%]). Peripheral neuropathy of grade 2 or above was less frequent with selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (41 [21%] patients) than with bortezomib and dexamethasone (70 [34%] patients; odds ratio 0·50 [95% CI 0·32–0·79], p=0·0013). 47 (24%) patients in the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group and 62 (30%) in the bortezomib and dexamethasone group died. Interpretation: A once-per-week regimen of selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone is a novel, effective, and convenient treatment option for patients with multiple myeloma who have received one to three previous lines of therapy. Funding: Karyopharm Therapeutics. © 2020 Elsevier Ltd

We report follow-up results from the randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 HELIOS trial of ibrutinib+bendamustine and rituximab (BR) for previously treated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL) without deletion 17p. Overall, 578 patients were randomized 1:1 to either ibrutinib (420 mg daily) or placebo, in combination with 6 cycles of BR, followed by ibrutinib or placebo alone. Median follow-up was 34.8 months (range: 0.1–45.8). Investigator-assessed median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached for ibrutinib+BR, versus 14.3 months for placebo+BR (hazard ratio [HR] [95% CI], 0.206 [0.159–0.265]; P < 0.0001); 36-month PFS rates were 68.0% versus 13.9%, respectively. The results are consistent with the primary analysis findings (HR = 0.203, as assessed by independent review committee, with 17-month median follow-up). Median overall survival was not reached in either arm; HR (95% CI) for ibrutinib+BR versus placebo: 0.652 (0.454–0.935; P = 0.019). Minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative response rates were 26.3% for ibrutinib+BR and 6.2% for placebo+BR (P < 0.0001). Incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (including grades 3–4) were generally consistent with the initial HELIOS report. These long-term data support improved survival outcomes and deepening responses with ibrutinib+BR compared with BR in relapsed CLL/SLL. © 2018, The Author(s).

Multiple myeloma (MM) remains an incurable disease, with little information available on its management in real-world clinical practice. The results of the present prospective, noninterventional observational study revealed great diversity in the treatment regimens used to treat MM. Our results also provide data to inform health economic, pharmacoepidemiologic, and outcomes research, providing a framework for the design of protocols to improve the outcomes of patients with MM. Background: The present prospective, multinational, noninterventional study aimed to document and describe real-world treatment regimens and disease progression in multiple myeloma (MM) patients. Patients and Methods: Adult patients initiating any new MM therapy from October 2010 to October 2012 were eligible. A multistage patient/site recruitment model was applied to minimize the selection bias; enrollment was stratified by country, region, and practice type. The patient medical and disease features, treatment history, and remission status were recorded at baseline, and prospective data on treatment, efficacy, and safety were collected electronically every 3 months. Results: A total of 2358 patients were enrolled. Of these patients, 775 and 1583 did and did not undergo stem cell transplantation (SCT) at any time during treatment, respectively. Of the patients in the SCT and non-SCT groups, 49%, 21%, 14%, and 15% and 57%, 20%, 12% and 10% were enrolled at treatment line 1, 2, 3, and ≥ 4, respectively. In the SCT and non-SCT groups, 45% and 54% of the patients had received bortezomib-based therapy without thalidomide/lenalidomide, 12% and 18% had received thalidomide/lenalidomide-based therapy without bortezomib, and 30% and 4% had received bortezomib plus thalidomide/lenalidomide-based therapy as frontline treatment, respectively. The corresponding proportions of SCT and non-SCT patients in lines 2, 3, and ≥ 4 were 45% and 37%, 30% and 37%, and 12% and 3%, 33% and 27%, 35% and 32%, and 8% and 2%, and 27% and 27%, 27% and 23%, and 6% and 4%, respectively. In the SCT and non-SCT patients, the overall response rate was 86% to 97% and 64% to 85% in line 1, 74% to 78% and 59% to 68% in line 2, 55% to 83% and 48% to 60% in line 3, and 49% to 65% and 36% and 45% in line 4, respectively, for regimens that included bortezomib and/or thalidomide/lenalidomide. Conclusion: The results of our prospective study have revealed great diversity in the treatment regimens used to manage MM in real-life practice. This diversity was linked to factors such as novel agent accessibility and evolving treatment recommendations. Our results provide insight into associated clinical benefits. © 2018 The Authors

BACKGROUND: Bortezomib with dexamethasone is a standard treatment option for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Carfilzomib with dexamethasone has shown promising activity in patients in this disease setting. The aim of this study was to compare the combination of carfilzomib and dexamethasone with bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. METHODS: In this randomised, phase 3, open-label, multicentre study, patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who had one to three previous treatments were randomly assigned (1:1) using a blocked randomisation scheme (block size of four) to receive carfilzomib with dexamethasone (carfilzomib group) or bortezomib with dexamethasone (bortezomib group). Randomisation was stratified by previous proteasome inhibitor therapy, previous lines of treatment, International Staging System stage, and planned route of bortezomib administration if randomly assigned to bortezomib with dexamethasone. Patients received treatment until progression with carfilzomib (20 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 2 of cycle 1; 56 mg/m(2) thereafter; 30 min intravenous infusion) and dexamethasone (20 mg oral or intravenous infusion) or bortezomib (1·3 mg/m(2); intravenous bolus or subcutaneous injection) and dexamethasone (20 mg oral or intravenous infusion). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. All participants who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the safety analyses. The study is ongoing but not enrolling participants; results for the interim analysis of the primary endpoint are presented. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01568866. FINDINGS: Between June 20, 2012, and June 30, 2014, 929 patients were randomly assigned (464 to the carfilzomib group; 465 to the bortezomib group). Median follow-up was 11·9 months (IQR 9·3-16·1) in the carfilzomib group and 11·1 months (8·2-14·3) in the bortezomib group. Median progression-free survival was 18·7 months (95% CI 15·6-not estimable) in the carfilzomib group versus 9·4 months (8·4-10·4) in the bortezomib group at a preplanned interim analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 0·53 [95% CI 0·44-0·65]; p

Most patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma relapse after initial therapy. Bendamustine plus rituximab is often used in the relapsed or refractory setting. We assessed the efficacy and safety of adding ibrutinib, an oral covalent inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK), to bendamustine plus rituximab in patients with previously treated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma.The HELIOS trial was an international, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study in adult patients (≥18 years of age) who had active chronic lymphocytic leukaemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma with measurable lymph node disease (1·5 cm) by CT scan, and had relapsed or refractory disease following one or more previous lines of systemic therapy consisting of at least two cycles of a chemotherapy-containing regimen, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-1, and adequate bone marrow, liver, and kidney function. Patients with del(17p) were excluded because of known poor response to bendamustine plus rituximab. Patients who had received previous treatment with ibrutinib or other BTK inhibitors, refractory disease or relapse within 24 months with a previous bendamustine-containing regimen, or haemopoietic stem-cell transplant were also excluded. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a web-based system to receive bendamustine plus rituximab given in cycles of 4 weeks' duration (bendamustine: 70 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 2-3 in cycle 1, and days 1-2 in cycles 2-6; rituximab: 375 mg/m(2) on day 1 of cycle 1, and 500 mg/m(2) on day 1 of cycles 2-6 for a maximum of six cycles) with either ibrutinib (420 mg daily orally) or placebo until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients were stratified according to whether they were refractory to purine analogues and by number of previous lines of therapy. The primary endpoint was independent review committee (IRC)-assessed progression-free survival. Crossover to ibrutinib was permitted for patients in the placebo group with IRC-confirmed disease progression. Analysis was by intention-to-treat and is continuing for further long-term follow-up. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01611090.Between Sept 19, 2012, and Jan 21, 2014, 578 eligible patients were randomly assigned to ibrutinib or placebo in combination with bendamustine plus rituximab (289 in each group). The primary endpoint was met at the preplanned interim analysis (March 10, 2015). At a median follow-up of 17 months (IQR 13·7-20·7), progression-free survival was significantly improved in the ibrutinib group compared with the placebo group (not reached in the ibrutinib group (95% CI not evaluable) vs 13·3 months (11·3-13·9) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·203, 95% CI 0·150-0·276; p0·0001). IRC-assessed progression-free survival at 18 months was 79% (95% CI 73-83) in the ibrutinib group and 24% (18-31) in the placebo group (HR 0·203, 95% CI 0·150-0·276; p0·0001). The most frequent all-grade adverse events were neutropenia and nausea. 222 (77%) of 287 patients in the ibrutinib group and 212 (74%) of 287 patients in the placebo group reported grade 3-4 events; the most common grade 3-4 adverse events in both groups were neutropenia (154 [54%] in the ibrutinib group vs 145 [51%] in the placebo group) and thrombocytopenia (43 [15%] in each group). A safety profile similar to that previously reported with ibrutinib and bendamustine plus rituximab individually was noted.In patients eligible for bendamustine plus rituximab, the addition of ibrutinib to this regimen results in significant improvements in outcome with no new safety signals identified from the combination and a manageable safety profile.Janssen ResearchDevelopment.

Background: Most patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma relapse after initial therapy. Bendamustine plus rituximab is often used in the relapsed or refractory setting. We assessed the efficacy and safety of adding ibrutinib, an oral covalent inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK), to bendamustine plus rituximab in patients with previously treated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma. Methods: The HELIOS trial was an international, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study in adult patients (≥18 years of age) who had active chronic lymphocytic leukaemia or small lymphocytic lymphoma with measurable lymph node disease (>1·5 cm) by CT scan, and had relapsed or refractory disease following one or more previous lines of systemic therapy consisting of at least two cycles of a chemotherapy-containing regimen, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-1, and adequate bone marrow, liver, and kidney function. Patients with del(17p) were excluded because of known poor response to bendamustine plus rituximab. Patients who had received previous treatment with ibrutinib or other BTK inhibitors, refractory disease or relapse within 24 months with a previous bendamustine-containing regimen, or haemopoietic stem-cell transplant were also excluded. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a web-based system to receive bendamustine plus rituximab given in cycles of 4 weeks' duration (bendamustine: 70 mg/m2 intravenously on days 2-3 in cycle 1, and days 1-2 in cycles 2-6; rituximab: 375 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycle 1, and 500 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycles 2-6 for a maximum of six cycles) with either ibrutinib (420 mg daily orally) or placebo until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients were stratified according to whether they were refractory to purine analogues and by number of previous lines of therapy. The primary endpoint was independent review committee (IRC)-assessed progression-free survival. Crossover to ibrutinib was permitted for patients in the placebo group with IRC-confirmed disease progression. Analysis was by intention-to-treat and is continuing for further long-term follow-up. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01611090. Findings: Between Sept 19, 2012, and Jan 21, 2014, 578 eligible patients were randomly assigned to ibrutinib or placebo in combination with bendamustine plus rituximab (289 in each group). The primary endpoint was met at the preplanned interim analysis (March 10, 2015). At a median follow-up of 17 months (IQR 13·7-20·7), progression-free survival was significantly improved in the ibrutinib group compared with the placebo group (not reached in the ibrutinib group (95% CI not evaluable) vs 13·3 months (11·3-13·9) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·203, 95% CI 0·150-0·276; p

BACKGROUND: Bortezomib and rituximab have shown additive activity in preclinical models of lymphoma, and have been shown to be active and generally well tolerated in a randomised phase 2 study in patients with follicular and marginal zone lymphoma. We compared the efficacy and safety of rituximab alone or combined with bortezomib in patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma in a phase 3 setting. METHODS: In this multicentre phase 3 trial, rituximab-naive or rituximab-sensitive patients aged 18 years or older with relapsed grade 1 or 2 follicular lymphoma were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive five 35-day cycles consisting of intravenous infusions of rituximab 375 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of cycle 1, and on day 1 of cycles 2-5, either alone or with bortezomib 1·6 mg/m(2), administered by intravenous injection on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of all cycles. Randomisation was stratified by FLIPI score, previous use of rituximab, time since last therapy, and region. Treatment assignment was based on a computer-generated randomisation schedule prepared by the sponsor. Patients and treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival analysed by intention to treat. This trial has been completed and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00312845. FINDINGS: Between April 10, 2006, and Aug 12, 2008, 676 patients were randomised to receive rituximab (n=340) or bortezomib plus rituximab (n=336). After a median follow-up of 33·9 months (IQR 26·4-39·7), median progression-free survival was 11·0 months (95% CI 9·1-12·0) in the rituximab group and 12·8 months (11·5-15·0) in the bortezomib plus rituximab group (hazard ratio 0·82, 95% CI 0·68-0·99; p=0·039). The magnitude of clinical benefit was not as large as the anticipated prespecified improvement of 33% in progression-free survival. Patients in both groups received a median of five treatment cycles (range 1-5); 245 of 339 (72%) and 237 of 334 (71%) patients in the rituximab and bortezomib plus rituximab groups, respectively, completed five cycles. Of patients who did not complete five cycles, most discontinued early because of disease progression (77 [23%] patients in the rituximab group, and 56 [17%] patients in the bortezomib plus rituximab group). Rates of adverse events of grade 3 or higher (70 [21%] of 339 rituximab-treated patients vs 152 [46%] of 334 bortezomib plus rituximab treated patients), and serious adverse events (37 [11%] patients vs 59 [18%] patients) were lower in the rituximab group than in the combination group. The most common adverse events of grade 3 or higher were neutropenia (15 [4%] patients in the rituximab group and 37 [11%] patients in the bortezomib plus rituximab group), infection (15 [4%] patients and 36 [11%] patients, respectively), diarrhoea (no patients and 25 [7%] patients, respectively), herpes zoster (one [

Therapeutic regimens for previously treated multiple myeloma (MM) may not provide prolonged disease control and are often complicated by significant adverse events, including peripheral neuropathy. In patients with previously treated MM in the Phase 3 BOSTON study, once weekly selinexor, once weekly bortezomib, and 40 mg dexamethasone (XVd) demonstrated a significantly longer median progression-free survival (PFS), higher response rates, deeper responses, a trend to improved survival, and reduced incidence and severity of bortezomib-induced peripheral neuropathy when compared with standard twice weekly bortezomib and 80 mg dexamethasone (Vd). The pre-specified analyses described here evaluated the influence of the number of prior lines of therapy, prior treatment with lenalidomide, prior proteasome inhibitor (PI) therapy, prior immunomodulatory drug therapy, and prior autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) on the efficacy and safety of XVd compared with Vd. In this 1:1 randomized study, enrolled patients were assigned to receive once weekly oral selinexor (100 mg) with once weekly subcutaneous bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2) and 40 mg per week dexamethasone (XVd) versus standard twice weekly bortezomib and 80 mg per week dexamethasone (Vd). XVd significantly improved PFS, overall response rate, time-to-next-treatment, and showed reduced all grade and grade ≥ 2 peripheral neuropathy compared with Vd regardless of prior treatments, but the benefits of XVd over Vd were more pronounced in patients treated earlier in their disease course who had either received only one prior therapy, had never been treated with a PI, or had prior ASCT. Treatment with XVd improved outcomes as compared to Vd regardless of prior therapies as well as manageable and generally reversible adverse events. XVd was associated with clinical benefit and reduced peripheral neuropathy compared to standard Vd in previously treated MM. These results suggest that the once weekly XVd regimen may be optimally administered to patients earlier in their course of disease, as their first bortezomib-containing regimen, and in those relapsing after ASCT.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03110562). Registered 12 April 2017. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03110562.

Elderly and frail patients with multiple myeloma (MM) are more vulnerable to the toxicity of combination therapies, often resulting in treatment modifications and suboptimal outcomes. The phase 3 BOSTON study showed that once-weekly selinexor and bortezomib with low-dose dexamethasone (XVd) improved PFS and ORR compared with standard twice-weekly bortezomib and moderate-dose dexamethasone (Vd) in patients with previously treated MM. This is a retrospective subgroup analysis of the multicenter, prospective, randomized BOSTON trial. Post hoc analyses were performed to compare XVd versus Vd safety and efficacy according to age and frailty status (

In the phase 3 BOSTON study, patients with multiple myeloma (MM) after 1–3 prior regimens were randomized to once-weekly selinexor (an oral inhibitor of exportin 1 [XPO1]) plus bortezomib-dexamethasone (XVd) or twice-weekly bortezomib-dexamethasone (Vd). Compared with Vd, XVd was associated with significant improvements in median progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), and lower rates of peripheral neuropathy, with trends in overall survival (OS) favoring XVd. In BOSTON, 141 (35.1%) patients had MM with high-risk (presence of del[17p], t[4;14], t[14;16], or ≥4 copies of amp1q21) cytogenetics (XVd, n=70; Vd, n=71), and 261 (64.9%) exhibited standard-risk cytogenetics (XVd, n=125; Vd, n=136). Among patients with high-risk MM, median PFS was 12.91 months for XVd and 8.61 months for Vd (HR, 0.73 [95% CI, (0.4673, 1.1406)], p=0.082), and ORRs were 78.6% and 57.7%, respectively (OR 2.68; p= 0.004). In the standard-risk subgroup, median PFS was 16.62 months for XVd and 9.46 months for Vd (HR 0.61; p=0.004), and ORRs were 75.2% and 64.7%, respectively (OR 1.65; p=0.033). The safety profiles of XVd and Vd in both subgroups were consistent with the overall population. These data suggest that selinexor can confer benefits to patients with MM regardless of cytogenetic risk. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03110562.

Summary Background Selinexor combined with dexamethasone has shown activity in patients with heavily pre-treated multiple myeloma. In a phase 1b/2 study, the combination of oral selinexor with bortezomib (a proteasome inhibitor) and dexamethasone induced high response rates with low rates of peripheral neuropathy, the main dose-limiting toxicity of bortezomib. We aimed to evaluate the clinical benefit of weekly selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone versus standard bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma. Methods This phase 3, randomised, open-label trial was done at 123 sites in 21 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older, who had multiple myeloma, and who had previously been treated with one to three lines of therapy, including proteasome inhibitors, were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive selinexor (100 mg once per week), bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 once per week), and dexamethasone (20 mg twice per week), or bortezomib (1·3 mg/m2 twice per week for the first 24 weeks and once per week thereafter) and dexamethasone (20 mg four times per week for the first 24 weeks and twice per week thereafter). Randomisation was done using interactive response technology and stratified by previous proteasome inhibitor therapy, lines of treatment, and multiple myeloma stage. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included in the safety population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03110562 . The trial is ongoing, with 55 patients remaining on randomised therapy as of Feb 20, 2020. Findings Of 457 patients screened for eligibility, 402 were randomly allocated—195 (49%) to the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group and 207 (51%) to the bortezomib and dexamethasone group—and the first dose of study medication was given between June 6, 2017, and Feb 5, 2019. Median follow-up durations were 13·2 months [IQR 6·2–19·8] for the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group and 16·5 months [9·4–19·8] for the bortezomib and dexamethasone group. Median progression-free survival was 13·93 months (95% CI 11·73–not evaluable) with selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone and 9·46 months (8·11–10·78) with bortezomib and dexamethasone (hazard ratio 0·70 [95% CI 0·53–0·93], p=0·0075). The most frequent grade 3–4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (77 [39%] of 195 patients in the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group vs 35 [17%] of 204 in the bortezomib and dexamethasone group), fatigue (26 [13%] vs two [1%]), anaemia (31 [16%] vs 20 [10%]), and pneumonia (22 [11%] vs 22 [11%]). Peripheral neuropathy of grade 2 or above was less frequent with selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (41 [21%] patients) than with bortezomib and dexamethasone (70 [34%] patients; odds ratio 0·50 [95% CI 0·32–0·79], p=0·0013). 47 (24%) patients in the selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone group and 62 (30%) in the bortezomib and dexamethasone group died. Interpretation A once-per-week regimen of selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone is a novel, effective, and convenient treatment option for patients with multiple myeloma who have received one to three previous lines of therapy. Funding Karyopharm Therapeutics.