selinexor临床试验组合的评估:一项横断面研究。

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 HEMATOLOGY
Therapeutic Advances in Hematology Pub Date : 2025-05-31 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1177/20406207251329174
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":"selinexor临床试验组合的评估:一项横断面研究。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

背景:抗癌药物的开发是一个复杂而昂贵的过程。Selinexor是一种加速批准的药物,作为复发或难治性弥漫性大b细胞淋巴瘤和多发性骨髓瘤的新疗法。尽管最初显示出治疗这些疾病的希望,但在临床试验中显示出高度毒性。因此,有必要对selinexor的临床试验组合进行分析评估。目的:本研究旨在评估已发表的selinexor临床试验,以评估其在反应和生存结果以及毒性方面的风险/获益。设计:横断面。方法:我们通过检索已发表的临床试验数据库进行了横断面调查,这些临床试验使用了与成人服用selinexor有关的反应标准。我们以隐藏、重复的方式提取了试验特征、中位无进展生存期(PFS)、总生存期(OS)、客观缓解率(ORR)和3-5级不良事件(ae)。结果:在鉴定的753篇文章中,有40篇被纳入我们的最终样本。使用对照组报告PFS数据的试验显示,PFS的中位差异为4.4个月,有利于selinexor治疗组。然而,报告对照组OS数据的试验表明,selinexor的OS中位差异(-2.4个月)比对照组更差。在报告ORR的53种测量方法中,加权中位ORR为36.4%,中位差ORR(4.8%)偏向于selinexor。此外,报告了4153例累计3-5级ae。结论:与对照组相比,selinexor可提高PFS,诱导反应,提示药物活性。然而,在单个适应症中没有看到可接受的3-5级ae或OS改善,这表明预测概率很低。我们对selinexor的风险/收益分析为该药物的不良结果和增加的高级别ae提供了有价值的见解。因此,应该仔细审查selinexor的进一步测试,并将其与我们提供的数据组合结合起来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
An evaluation of selinexor's clinical trial portfolio: a cross-sectional study.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
审稿时长
7 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信