Selinexor: a first-in-class SINE compound for treatment of relapsed refractory multiple myeloma

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (19) ◽  
pp. 1331-1350 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shambavi Richard ◽  
Joshua Richter ◽  
Sundar Jagannath

The progression of multiple myeloma is accompanied by complex cytogenetic and epigenetic alterations that include mutation or functional inactivation of tumor suppressor proteins and overexpression of oncoproteins. Patients whose myeloma is refractory to the three major classes of drugs including immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies have a very poor prognosis. Drugs with novel mechanisms of action that can bypass resistance mechanisms are sorely needed for this group of patients. Selinexor represents a novel, oral agent with an innovative mechanism of action that offers a significant therapeutic advance in this group of heavily treated patients. Moreover, this novel mechanism may provide additional options for patients with less refractory disease.

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Ricardo D. Parrondo ◽  
Vivek Roy ◽  
Taimur Sher ◽  
Victoria Alegria ◽  
Asher A. Chanan-Khan ◽  
...  

Extramedullary multiple myeloma is defined by the presence of plasma cell infiltration outside of the bone marrow. It is associated with a poor prognosis and resistance to therapy and is often associated with high-risk cytogenetics. Aggressive relapsed and refractory extramedullary multiple myeloma is often treated with salvage infusional chemotherapy to achieve rapid disease control. Commonly used regimens include DCEP, CVAD, and VTD-PACE. While VTD-PACE contains bortezomib and thalidomide which have potent antimyeloma activity, the advent of novel agent therapy with proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory agents being used in the first-line setting has resulted in many patients being refractory to bortezomib by the time they are treated with VTD-PACE. Herein, we discuss two cases of aggressive relapsed, high-risk, bortezomib-refractory extramedullary multiple myeloma treated with KRD-PACE and review the available clinical data on salvage chemotherapy regimens used in relapsed refractory myeloma.


Blood ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 130 (13) ◽  
pp. 1507-1513 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippe Moreau

Abstract At present, multiple classes of agents with distinct mechanisms of action are available for the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM), including alkylators, steroids, immunomodulatory agents (IMiDs), proteasome inhibitors (PIs), histone deacetylase inhibitors (DACIs), and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Over the last 5 years, several new agents, such as the third-generation IMiD pomalidomide, the second-generation PIs carfilzomib and ixazomib, the DACI panobinostat, and 2 mAbs, elotuzumab and daratumumab, have been approved, incorporated into clinical guidelines, and have transformed our approach to the treatment of patients. These agents may be part of doublet or triplet combinations, or incorporated into intensive strategies with autologous stem cell transplantation. In this review, I discuss the different treatment options available today for the treatment of MM in frontline and relapse settings.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19514-e19514
Author(s):  
Barry Paul ◽  
Gavin Loitsch ◽  
Daniel Feinberg ◽  
Ian Barak ◽  
Zhiguo Li ◽  
...  

e19514 Background: The treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) has evolved significantly with the advent of the immunomodulatory agents (IMiDs) and proteasome inhibitors (PIs). While the presence of bone marrow fibrosis (BMF) has previously been associated with poor prognosis in multiple myeloma (MM), these studies were small and conducted prior to the widespread use of IMiDs and PIs. Here, we determined the incidence of BMF in NDMM patients and correlated the degree of BMF with prognosis in a population enriched for IMiD and/or PI exposure. Methods: Bone marrow biopsies from 306 MM patients seen at Duke between 2003 and 2013 were screened for BMF using a reticulin stain. Samples were scored as absent, mild, moderate, or severe fibrosis based on the degree and intensity of staining. The association between presence and degree of BMF to progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was calculated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results: Of the 306 patients evaluated, 248 (81.0%) were treated with an IMiD, 241 (78.8%) were treated with a PI, and 217 (70.9%) received both. Additionally, 160 (52.3%) patients went on to receive an autologous stem cell transplant (HSCT). A total of 193 patients (63.1%) were evaluable for BMF. Of these, 96 (49.7%) had detectable BMF, while 97 (50.3%) had no BMF. The degree of BMF was mild in 60 patients (62.5%), and moderate or severe in 34 patients (35.4%). Median PFS in patients without BMF was 30.4 months, and 21.8 months in patients with BMF present (log-rank p = 0.02). Median OS was 61.1 months in patients without BMF, and 46.3 months in patients with BMF (log-rank p = 0.048). Patients with moderate or severe BMF had a particularly poor prognosis with a PFS of only 18.8 months and an OS of 32.7 months. Conclusions: Our study represents the largest dataset to date examining the incidence of BMF in MM patients, and is the only one to examine the association of BMF with prognosis in the era of novel therapies and widespread use of HSCT. Our data suggests that BMF is common in NDMM, and MM patients with BMF (particularly those with more extensive BMF) have a poorer prognosis even when treated with IMiDs and PIs. These data emphasize the importance of determining the presence and degree of BMF at time of MM diagnosis, and suggest a role for adjunctive therapies that target BMF in MM patients with co-existing BMF.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola Sgherza ◽  
Paola Curci ◽  
Rita Rizzi ◽  
Pellegrino Musto

Although the survival rate of patients with multiple myeloma has significantly improved in the last years thanks to the introduction of various classes of new drugs, such as proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory agents, and monoclonal antibodies, the vast majority of these subjects relapse with a more aggressive disease due to the acquisition of further genetic alterations that may cause resistance to current salvage therapies. The treatment of these often “triple” (or even more) refractory patients remains challenging, and alternative approaches are required to overcome the onset of that resistance. Immunotherapies with novel monoclonal, drug-conjugated, or bi-specific antibodies, as well as the use of chimeric antigen receptor T cells, have been recently developed and are currently investigated. However, other non-immunologic therapeutic regimens based on melfluflen, venetoclax, or selinexor, three molecules with new mechanisms of action, have also shown promising results in the setting of relapsed/refractory myeloma. Here we report the most recent literature data regarding these three drugs, focusing on their efficacy and safety in multiple myeloma.


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 56-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ricardo D. Parrondo ◽  
Sikander Ailawadhi ◽  
Taimur Sher ◽  
Asher A. Chanan-Khan ◽  
Vivek Roy

Despite the evolution of the therapeutic arsenal for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) over the past decade, autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) remains an integral part of the treatment of patients with both newly diagnosed and relapsed MM. The advent of novel therapies, such as immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors, and monoclonal antibodies, has led to unprecedented levels of deep hematologic responses. Nonetheless, studies show that ASCT has an additive effect leading to additional deepening of responses. As the therapeutic agents for MM continue to evolve, the timing, duration, and sequence of their use in combination with ASCT will be crucial to understand to obtain the deepest response and survival benefit for patients with MM. This review aims to discuss the role of ASCT for the management of MM, with a particular focus on the role of ASCT in the context of novel therapies and minimal residual disease.


2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19515-e19515
Author(s):  
Sarvari Yellapragada ◽  
Chizoba Ifeorah ◽  
Luke Fletcher ◽  
Gustavo Rivero ◽  
Zahida Yasin ◽  
...  

e19515 Background: Proteasome inhibitors (PIs) are efficacious in multiple myeloma (MM). In randomized phase 3 studies Carfilzomib doubled the progression free survival (PFS) compared to Bortezomib from 9.4 mo to 18.7 mo (ENDEAVOR study) in relapsed and refractory MM. However concern for suboptimal Carfilzomib based therapy (CBT) response in patients (pt) progressing on Bortezomib based therapy (BBT) suggests “cross-resistance”. Methods: AfterIRB approval, all pt with symptomatic MM over the last 10 years at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center with initial BBT followed by salvage CBT at progression were included. The primary aim was to evaluate ORR (PR + VGPR+CR) and and PFS by the IMWG criteria, among relapsed/refractory pt treated with salvage CBT whether or not they had an initial BBT response (i.e., primary refractory+stable vs CR+PR+VGPR). Results: In this cohort, the median overall survival was 45 mo. Pt initially treated with BBT had an ORR of 17/19 (89.4%) and median PFS of 7.7 mo. For 12 pt attaining PR, PFS was 4.3 mo, whereas for those achieving CR/VGPR was 9.1 mo, p= 0.03. Two pt were primary refractory to BBT and also to CBT. For initially treated BBT responders the ORR with CBT was 68.4% (13/19), median PFS was 5.26 mo. 6/19 pt (32%) were CBT refractory. PFS during BBT for CBT responders versus CBT refractory patients was not statistically different. Among those who responded to both CBT and BBT there was no significant correlation between the PFS or depth of response (CR vs VGPR vs PR) with initial BBT and PFS with CBT. Conclusions: In our retrospective analysis, pt who exhibited primary resistance to initial BBT did not benefit from salvage therapy with CBT, raising the possibility that hard-wired PI-resistance mechanisms exist. Among BBT responders, CBT ORR was 68%. However the PFS with CBT was significantly shorter than the published literature of CBT in RRMM naïve to PI leading us to hypothesize that uncharacterized resistance mechanisms from “priming” bortezomib leads to inferior outcome with salvage CBT. We conclude that CBT can be attempted in those who respond to BBT independent of depth of response or PFS duration. However, alternative therapies should be considered in pt with primary refractoriness to BBT.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20020-e20020
Author(s):  
Cristina Gasparetto ◽  
Brea Lipe ◽  
Sascha Tuchman ◽  
Nizar J. Bahlis ◽  
Heather J. Sutherland ◽  
...  

e20020 Background: Exportin 1 (XPO1) mediates the nuclear export and functional inactivation of tumor suppressor proteins, is required for MM growth, is associated with poor prognosis in MM and mediates resistance to standard MM therapies. Selinexor (SEL) is a first-in-class, oral selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE) compound approved in combination with dexamethasone (dex) ± bortezomib for patients (pts) with previously treated MM. Once MM becomes refractory to αCD38 mAb, pts have limited effective treatment options and poor prognosis. Overall response rate (ORR) to the first regimen after refractoriness to an αCD38 mAb is 31%, median progression-free survival (mPFS) is 3.4 months (m), and median overall survival (mOS) is 8.6 m. The doublet SEL-dex (Xd) has shown ORR ̃26% in triple-class (IMID, PI, αCD38 mAb) refractory MM; SEL-based triplets could be more effective in this population. Methods: STOMP (Selinexor and Backbone Treatments of Multiple Myeloma Patients) is a multi-arm, open-label, Phase 1b/2 study evaluating SEL in various triplet combinations. Here, we retrospectively analyzed the efficacy and safety of SEL-containing triplets in pts previously treated with αCD38 mAbs. Pts received SEL-dex (Xd) plus pomalidomide (XPd, n = 19), bortezomib (XVd, n = 4), lenalidomide (XRd, n = 4), daratumumab (XDd, n = 2) or carfilzomib (XKd, n = 18). ORR, mOS, mPFS and adverse events (AEs) were analyzed. Results: Among the 47 pts, median age 64 yrs, female 53%, median time from diagnosis 5.1 yrs, median number of prior regimens 5 (range, 2–11). Prior daratumumab (96%), isatuximab (4%); 96% had MM refractory to aCD38 mAb, 81% had triple-class refractory MM, 74% and 47% were quad- and penta-exposed, 43% and 15% had quad- and penta-refractory MM. αCD38 mAb was included in the immediate prior regimen of 57% of pts and median duration from end of most recent aCD38 mAb therapy to first dose of study treatment was 6.9 weeks (range, 2.6-114.9). ORR was 51% among the 45 evaluable pts, 59% in the XPd arm (n = 17; 2 pts were not efficacy evaluable) and 67% in the XKd arm. ORR was 47% (9/19) among pts with quad-refractory MM and evaluable efficacy. Among all evaluable pts mPFS was 8.8 m (95% CI: 4.9, NE) and mOS was 20.4 m (95% CI: 9.6, NE). Among the 25 pts with αCD38 mAb in their immediate prior regimen, efficacy was similar to that regimen: ORR 52% vs. 45%, mPFS 8.8 vs. 9.3 m. The most common treatment emergent AEs were nausea (72%), anemia (64%), thrombocytopenia (60%), fatigue (57%), which were managed with standard supportive care and dose modifications. Conclusions: SEL-containing triplets in pts with MM previously treated with αCD38 mAbs, most of whom had triple-class refractory MM, exhibit tolerability and comparable effectiveness to their most recent αCD38 mAb-containing regimens. Compared to historical control, mOS was much higher among these patients. Further investigation is warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT02343042.


Cells ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. 1432 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pedro Mogollón ◽  
Andrea Díaz-Tejedor ◽  
Esperanza M. Algarín ◽  
Teresa Paíno ◽  
Mercedes Garayoa ◽  
...  

A high priority problem in multiple myeloma (MM) management is the development of resistance to administered therapies, with most myeloma patients facing successively shorter periods of response and relapse. Herewith, we review the current knowledge on the mechanisms of resistance to the standard backbones in MM treatment: proteasome inhibitors (PIs), immunomodulatory agents (IMiDs), and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). In some cases, strategies to overcome resistance have been discerned, and an effort should be made to evaluate whether resensitization to these agents is feasible in the clinical setting. Additionally, at a time in which we are moving towards precision medicine in MM, it is equally important to identify reliable and accurate biomarkers of sensitivity/refractoriness to these main therapeutic agents with the goal of having more efficacious treatments and, if possible, prevent the development of relapse.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document