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]

Introduction: Uveal melanoma remains a disease with aggressive behavior and poor prognosis despite advances in clinical management. Because monotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors has led to limited improvement in response rates, combination with other agents that act on the biological basis of oncogenesis has been proposed as a possible therapeutic strategy., Methods: We designed a phase 1b trial to test the safety and tolerability of selinexor in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced uveal melanoma. Patients received selinexor 60 mg PO twice weekly with standard of care, commercially available immune checkpoint inhibitor of the investigator's choice. In one patient receiving nivolumab and ipilimumab as the immunotherapy backbone, selinexor 60 mg PO was given once weekly., Results: We included 10 patients with uveal melanoma who received treatment with either selinexor plus pembrolizumab ( n = 9) or selinexor plus nivolumab and ipilimumab ( n = 1). The most common adverse events of any grade were neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, leukopenia, and anemia. Additional common nonhematological toxicities included hyponatremia, nausea, and vomiting. Dose reductions were required in six patients (60%). Among nine patients with evaluable disease, eight had stable disease as the best response. The median progression-free and overall survival were 6 months (95% CI: 4, not reached and 17 months (95% CI: 7, not reached), respectively., Conclusion: The combination of selinexor and immunotherapy was safe and showed a side effect profile consistent with previous reports. Clinical benefit was achieved in most patients and should be validated in larger phase 2 trials. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02419495., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: Isabella Glitza Oliva reported speaker/consulting for Pfizer, Novartis, Biodexa, and Everclear; research/institutional support from Merck, BMS, and Pfizer; and advisory board for Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Pfizer. Funda Meric-Bernstam reported consulting for AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Becton Dickinson, Calibr (a division of Scripps Research), Daiichi Sankyo, Dava Oncology, Debiopharm, EcoR1 Capital, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Elevation Oncology, Exelixis, GT Aperion, Incyte, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, LegoChem Biosciences, Lengo Therapeutics, Menarini Group, Molecular Templates, Protai Bio, Ribometrix, Roche, Tallac Therapeutics, Tempus, and Zymeworks; advisory committee for Biovica, Cybrexa, FogPharma, Guardant Health, Harbinger Health, Karyopharm Therapeutics, LOXO-Oncology, Mersana Therapeutics, OnCusp Therapeutics, Sanofi Pharmaceuticals, Seagen, Theratechnologies, and Zentalis Pharmaceuticals; sponsored research (to institution) for Aileron Therapeutics, Inc., AstraZeneca, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceutical, Calithera Biosciences Inc., Curis Inc., CytomX Therapeutics Inc., Daiichi Sankyo Co. Ltd., Debiopharm International, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Genentech Inc., Guardant Health Inc., Klus Pharma, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Novartis, Puma Biotechnology Inc., Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., and Zymeworks; honoraria from Dava Oncology; travel expenses from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), Cholangiocarcinoma Foundation, and Dava Oncology. Sapna P. Patel reported institutional clinical trial support from BMS, Foghorn Therapeutics, Ideaya, InxMed, LyvgenBiopharma, Novartis, Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Seagen, SyntrixBio, TriSalusLifeSciences; advisory board, steering committee, data safety monitoring board, and/or consulting for BMS, CardinalHealth, CastleBiosciences, Delcath, Ideaya, Immatics, Immunocore, IOBiotech, MSD, Novartis, OncoSec, Pfizer, Replimune, Scancell, and TriSalus Life Sciences; and speaker’s honoraria (non-promotional) from BMS, MSD, Novartis. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest.