Search

Background: Despite a number of treatment options, patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) whose disease has become refractory to treatment have a poor prognosis. Selinexor is a novel, oral drug that is approved to treat patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL. In this post hoc analysis of the SADAL study, a multinational, open-label study, we evaluated subpopulations to determine if response to single agent selinexor is impacted by number of lines of prior treatment, autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), response to first and most recent therapies, and time to progressive disease. Patients: Patients (n = 134) with DLBCL after 2-5 prior therapies were enrolled in SADAL and received 60mg selinexor twice weekly. Results: The median overall survival was 9.0 months and median progression free survival was 2.6 months. Patients who had the best overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate were those who had prior ASCT (42.5% and 50.0%) or responded to last line of therapy (35.9% and 43.5%). Patients with primary refractory DLBCL also showed responses (ORR 21.8%). Adverse events between subgroups were similar to the overall study population, the most common being thrombocytopenia (29.1%), fatigue (7.5%), and nausea (6.0%). Conclusion: Regardless of prior therapy and disease refractory status, selinexor treatment demonstrated results consistent with its novel mechanism of action and lack of cross-resistance. Thus, single agent oral selinexor can induce deep, durable, and tolerable responses in patients with DLBCL who have recurrent disease after several chemoimmunotherapy combination regimens. © 2021

Aim: Evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and health utility impact of single-agent selinexor in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Patients & methods: Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) - Lymphoma and EuroQoL five-dimensions five-levels data collected in the single-arm Phase IIb trial SADAL (NCT02227251) were analyzed with mixed-effects models. Results: Treatment responders maintained higher FACT - Lymphoma (p = 3 adverse events and serious adverse events were not associated with clinically meaningful negative QoL impacts.

Aim: Evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and health utility impact of single-agent selinexor in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Patients & methods: Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT)-Lymphoma and EuroQoL five-dimensions five-levels data collected in the single-arm Phase IIb trial SADAL (NCT02227251) were analyzed with mixed-effects models. Results: Treatment responders maintained higher FACT-Lymphoma (p ≤ 0.05), FACT-General (p < 0.05) and EuroQoL five-dimensions five-levels index scores (p < 0.001) beginning in cycle 3. The estimated difference in health state utilities for treatment response and progressive disease was both statistically significant and clinically meaningful (mean difference: 0.07; p = 0.001). Conclusion: In patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, objective response to selinexor was associated with HRQoL maintenance, reduction in disease-related HRQoL decrements and higher health utilities. © 2021 Patrick Daniele.

Aim: Evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and health utility impact of single-agent selinexor in heavily pretreated patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Patients & methods: Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) - Lymphoma and EuroQoL five-dimensions five-levels data collected in the single-arm Phase IIb trial SADAL (NCT02227251) were analyzed with mixed-effects models. Results: Treatment responders maintained higher FACT - Lymphoma (p = 3 adverse events and serious adverse events were not associated with clinically meaningful negative QoL impacts.

Background Relapsed or refractory diffuse large B -cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is an aggressive cancer with a median overall survival of less than 6 months. We aimed to assess the response to single -agent selinexor, an oral selective inhibitor of nuclear export, in patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who had no therapeutic options of potential clinical benefit. Methods SADAL was a multicentre, multinational, open -label, phase 2b study done in 59 sites in 19 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with pathologically confirmed diffuse large B -cell lymphoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less, who had received two to five lines of previous therapies, and progressed after or were not candidates for autologous stem -cell transplantation were enrolled. Germinal centre B -cell or non -germinal centre B -cell tumour subtype and double or triple expressor status were determined by immunohistochemistry and double or triple hit status was determined by cytogenetics. Patients received 60 mg selinexor orally on days 1 and 3 weekly until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The study was initially designed to evaluate both 60 mg and 100 mg twice -weekly doses of selinexor; however, the 100 mg dose was discontinued in the protocol (version 7.0) on March 29, 2017, when an improved therapeutic window was observed at 60 mg. Primary outcome was overall response rate. The primary outcome and safety were assessed in all patients who received 60 mg selinexor under protocol version 6.0, or enrolled under protocol versions 7.0 or higher and received at least one dose of selinexor. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02227251 (active but not enrolling). Findings Between Oct 21, 2015, and Nov 2, 2019, 267 patients were randomly assigned, with 175 allocated to the 60 mg group and 92 to the discontinued 100 mg group. 48 patients assigned to the 60 mg group were excluded due to enrolment before version 6.0 of the protocol; the remaining 127 patients received selinexor 60 mg and were included in analyses of primary outcome and safety. The overall response rate was 28% (36/127; 95% CI 20?7-37?0); 15 (12%) achieved a complete response and 21 (17%) a partial response. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (n=58), neutropenia (n=31), anaemia (n=28), fatigue (n=14), hyponatraemia (n=10), and nausea (n=8). The most common serious adverse events were pyrexia (n=9), pneumonia (n=6), and sepsis (n=6). There were no deaths judged as related to treatment with selinexor. Interpretation Single -drug oral selinexor induced durable responses and had a manageable adverse events profile in patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who received at least two lines of previous chemoimmunotherapy. Selinexor could be considered a new oral, non-cytotoxic treatment option in this setting.

Background: Relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is an aggressive cancer with a median overall survival of less than 6 months. We aimed to assess the response to single-agent selinexor, an oral selective inhibitor of nuclear export, in patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who had no therapeutic options of potential clinical benefit. Methods: SADAL was a multicentre, multinational, open-label, phase 2b study done in 59 sites in 19 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with pathologically confirmed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or less, who had received two to five lines of previous therapies, and progressed after or were not candidates for autologous stem-cell transplantation were enrolled. Germinal centre B-cell or non-germinal centre B-cell tumour subtype and double or triple expressor status were determined by immunohistochemistry and double or triple hit status was determined by cytogenetics. Patients received 60 mg selinexor orally on days 1 and 3 weekly until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The study was initially designed to evaluate both 60 mg and 100 mg twice-weekly doses of selinexor; however, the 100 mg dose was discontinued in the protocol (version 7.0) on March 29, 2017, when an improved therapeutic window was observed at 60 mg. Primary outcome was overall response rate. The primary outcome and safety were assessed in all patients who received 60 mg selinexor under protocol version 6.0, or enrolled under protocol versions 7.0 or higher and received at least one dose of selinexor. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02227251 (active but not enrolling). Findings: Between Oct 21, 2015, and Nov 2, 2019, 267 patients were randomly assigned, with 175 allocated to the 60 mg group and 92 to the discontinued 100 mg group. 48 patients assigned to the 60 mg group were excluded due to enrolment before version 6.0 of the protocol; the remaining 127 patients received selinexor 60 mg and were included in analyses of primary outcome and safety. The overall response rate was 28% (36/127; 95% CI 20·7–37·0); 15 (12%) achieved a complete response and 21 (17%) a partial response. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (n=58), neutropenia (n=31), anaemia (n=28), fatigue (n=14), hyponatraemia (n=10), and nausea (n=8). The most common serious adverse events were pyrexia (n=9), pneumonia (n=6), and sepsis (n=6). There were no deaths judged as related to treatment with selinexor. Interpretation: Single-drug oral selinexor induced durable responses and had a manageable adverse events profile in patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who received at least two lines of previous chemoimmunotherapy. Selinexor could be considered a new oral, non-cytotoxic treatment option in this setting. Funding: Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc. © 2020 Elsevier Ltd

Background: Isatuximab is a monoclonal antibody that binds a specific epitope on the human CD38 receptor and has antitumour activity via multiple mechanisms of action. In a previous phase 1b study, around 65% of patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma achieved an overall response with a combination of isatuximab with pomalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone. The aim of this study was to determine the progression-free survival benefit of isatuximab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone compared with pomalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Methods: We did a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study at 102 hospitals in 24 countries in Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific regions. Eligible participants were adult patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who had received at least two previous lines of treatment, including lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor. Patients were excluded if they were refractory to previous treatment with an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to either isatuximab 10 mg/kg plus pomalidomide 4 mg plus dexamethasone 40 mg (20 mg for patients aged ≥75 years), or pomalidomide 4 mg plus dexamethasone 40 mg. Randomisation was done using interactive response technology and stratified according to the number of previous lines of treatment (2–3 vs >3) and age (

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 [