Annes Elfar, Andrew V Tran, Joseph Case, Cole Wayant, Griffin K Hughes, Ryan McIntire, Brooke Gardner, Chase Ladd, Andriana M Peña, Jordan Tuia, Alyson Haslam, Vinay Prasad, Matt Vassar
{"title":"An evaluation of selinexor's clinical trial portfolio: a cross-sectional study.","authors":"Annes Elfar, Andrew V Tran, Joseph Case, Cole Wayant, Griffin K Hughes, Ryan McIntire, Brooke Gardner, Chase Ladd, Andriana M Peña, Jordan Tuia, Alyson Haslam, Vinay Prasad, Matt Vassar","doi":"10.1177/20406207251329174","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cancer drug development is a complex and costly process. Selinexor is a drug that received accelerated approval as a new treatment for relapsed or refractory diffuse-large B-cell lymphoma and multiple myeloma. Despite initially showing promise in treating these conditions, it has shown high-grade toxicity in clinical trials. Hence, an analysis is needed to assess the clinical trial portfolio of selinexor.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This investigation aims to evaluate published clinical trials of selinexor to assess its risk/benefit in terms of response and survival outcomes as well as its toxicity.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Cross-sectional.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a cross-sectional investigation by searching databases for published clinical trials that used a response criteria pertaining to selinexor administration in adults. In a masked, duplicate manner, we extracted trial characteristics, median progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rates (ORR), and Grade 3-5 adverse events (AEs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 753 articles identified, 40 were included in our final sample. The trials reporting PFS data using control arms showed a median difference in PFS by 4.4 months, favoring the selinexor treatment arm. However, trials that reported OS data with control arms indicated that selinexor showed a worse median difference in OS (-2.4 months) than the control arms. Among the 53 measurements reporting ORR, the weighted median ORR was 36.4%, and the median difference ORR (4.8%) favored selinexor. Additionally, 4153 cumulative Grade 3-5 AEs were reported.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In comparison to a control arm, selinexor increases PFS and induces response, suggesting drug activity. However, acceptable Grade 3-5 AEs or improvement of OS was not seen across a single indication, suggesting a poor pretest probability. Our risk/benefit analysis of selinexor provides valuable insight into the unfavorable outcomes of the drug and increased high-grade AEs. Hence, further testing of selinexor should be carefully scrutinized and contextualized with the portfolio of data we present.</p>","PeriodicalId":23048,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Hematology","volume":"16 ","pages":"20406207251329174"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12126667/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Hematology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20406207251329174","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Cancer drug development is a complex and costly process. Selinexor is a drug that received accelerated approval as a new treatment for relapsed or refractory diffuse-large B-cell lymphoma and multiple myeloma. Despite initially showing promise in treating these conditions, it has shown high-grade toxicity in clinical trials. Hence, an analysis is needed to assess the clinical trial portfolio of selinexor.
Objectives: This investigation aims to evaluate published clinical trials of selinexor to assess its risk/benefit in terms of response and survival outcomes as well as its toxicity.
Design: Cross-sectional.
Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional investigation by searching databases for published clinical trials that used a response criteria pertaining to selinexor administration in adults. In a masked, duplicate manner, we extracted trial characteristics, median progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rates (ORR), and Grade 3-5 adverse events (AEs).
Results: Of the 753 articles identified, 40 were included in our final sample. The trials reporting PFS data using control arms showed a median difference in PFS by 4.4 months, favoring the selinexor treatment arm. However, trials that reported OS data with control arms indicated that selinexor showed a worse median difference in OS (-2.4 months) than the control arms. Among the 53 measurements reporting ORR, the weighted median ORR was 36.4%, and the median difference ORR (4.8%) favored selinexor. Additionally, 4153 cumulative Grade 3-5 AEs were reported.
Conclusion: In comparison to a control arm, selinexor increases PFS and induces response, suggesting drug activity. However, acceptable Grade 3-5 AEs or improvement of OS was not seen across a single indication, suggesting a poor pretest probability. Our risk/benefit analysis of selinexor provides valuable insight into the unfavorable outcomes of the drug and increased high-grade AEs. Hence, further testing of selinexor should be carefully scrutinized and contextualized with the portfolio of data we present.
期刊介绍:
Therapeutic Advances in Hematology delivers the highest quality peer-reviewed articles, reviews, and scholarly comment on pioneering efforts and innovative studies across all areas of hematology. The journal has a strong clinical and pharmacological focus and is aimed at clinicians and researchers in hematology, providing a forum in print and online for publishing the highest quality articles in this area.