Effect of prior treatments on selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in previously treated multiple myeloma

Selinexor in multiple myeloma

INTRODUCTION

Selinexor, an XPO1 inhibitor, has emerged as a promising therapeutic option in the challenging landscape of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM).

AREAS COVERED

This article provides a review of selinexor, with a focus on available clinical studies involving MM patients and its safety profile. Clinical trials, such as STORM and BOSTON, have demonstrated its efficacy, particularly in combination regimens, showcasing notable overall response rates (ORR) and prolonged median progressionfree survival (mPFS). Selinexor's versatility is evident across various combinations, including carfilzomibdexamethasone (XKd), lenalidomidedexamethasone (XRd), and pomalidomidedexamethasone (XPd), with efficacy observed even in tripleclass refractory and highrisk patient populations. However, challenges, including resistance mechanisms and adverse events, necessitate careful management. Realworld evidence also underscores selinexor's effectiveness in RRMM, though dose adjustments and supportive measures remain crucial. Ongoing trials are exploring selinexor in diverse combinations and settings, including pomalidomidenaïve patients and postautologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) maintenance.

EXPERT OPINION

The evolving landscape of selinexor's role in the sequencing of treatment for RRMM, its potential in highrisk patients, including those with extramedullary disease, as revealed in the most recent international meetings, and ongoing investigations signal a dynamic era in myeloma therapeutics. Selinexor emerges as a pivotal component in multidrug strategies and innovative combinations.

Nuclear transport proteins: structure, function, and disease relevance

Proper subcellular localization is crucial for the functioning of biomacromolecules, including proteins and RNAs. Nuclear transport is a fundamental cellular process that regulates the localization of many macromolecules within the nuclear or cytoplasmic compartments. In humans, approximately 60 proteins are involved in nuclear transport, including nucleoporins that form membrane-embedded nuclear pore complexes, karyopherins that transport cargoes through these complexes, and Ran system proteins that ensure directed and rapid transport. Many of these nuclear transport proteins play additional and essential roles in mitosis, biomolecular condensation, and gene transcription. Dysregulation of nuclear transport is linked to major human diseases such as cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, and viral infections. Selinexor (KPT-330), an inhibitor targeting the nuclear export factor XPO1 (also known as CRM1), was approved in 2019 to treat two types of blood cancers, and dozens of clinical trials of are ongoing. This review summarizes approximately three decades of research data in this field but focuses on the structure and function of individual nuclear transport proteins from recent studies, providing a cutting-edge and holistic view on the role of nuclear transport proteins in health and disease. In-depth knowledge of this rapidly evolving field has the potential to bring new insights into fundamental biology, pathogenic mechanisms, and therapeutic approaches.

Effect modification in network meta-analyses for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review and meta-analyse the evidence for effect modification by refractory status and number of treatment lines in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM); and to assess whether effect modification is likely to invalidate network meta-analyses (NMA) that assume negligible modification.

DESIGN

Systematic review, meta-analysis and simulation.

DATA SOURCES

We systematically searched the literature (e.g., OVID Medline) to identify eligible publications in February 2020 and regularly updated the search until January 2022. We also contacted project stakeholders (including industry) ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Phase 2 and 3 randomised controlled trials reporting stratified estimates for comparisons with at least one of a prespecified set of treatments relevant for use in Norwegian RRMM patients.

OUTCOMES

We used meta-analysis to estimate relative HRs (RHRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) with respect to refractory status and number of treatment lines. We used the estimated RHRs in simulations to estimate the percentage of NMA results expected to differ significantly in the presence versus absence of effect modification.

RESULTS

Among the 42 included publications, stratified estimates were published by and extracted from up to 18 (43%) publications and on as many as 8364 patients. Within-study evidence for effect modification is very weak (p>0.05 for 47 of 49 sets of stratified estimates). The largest RHR estimated was 1.32 (95% CI 1.18 to 1.49) for the modifying effect of refractory status on HR for PFS. Simulations suggest that, in the worst case, this would result in only 4.48% (95% CI 4.42% to 4.54%) of NMA estimates differing statistically significantly in the presence versus absence of effect modification.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence, effect modification appears to be sufficiently small that it can be neglected in adequately performed NMAs. NMAs can probably be relied on to provide estimates of HRs for OS and PFS in RRMM, subject to caveats discussed herein.

Recent Advances in the Applications of Small Molecules in the Treatment of Multiple Myeloma

Therapy for multiple myeloma (MM), a hematologic neoplasm of plasma cells, has undergone remarkable changes over the past 25 years. Small molecules (molecular weight of less than one kDa), together with newer immunotherapies that include monoclonal antibodies, antibody-drug conjugates, and most recently, chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cells, have combined to double the disease's five-year survival rate to over 50% during the past few decades. Despite these advances, the disease is still considered incurable, and its treatment continues to pose substantial challenges, since therapeutic refractoriness and patient relapse are exceedingly common. This review focuses on the current pipeline, along with the contemporary roles and future prospects for small molecules in MM therapy. While small molecules offer prospective benefits in terms of oral bioavailability, cellular penetration, simplicity of preparation, and improved cost-benefit considerations, they also pose problems of toxicity due to off-target effects. Highlighted in the discussion are recent developments in the applications of alkylating agents, immunomodulators, proteasome inhibitors, apoptosis inducers, kinesin spindle protein inhibitors, blockers of nuclear transport, and drugs that affect various kinases involved in intracellular signaling pathways. Molecular and cellular targets are described for each class of agents in relation to their roles as drivers of MM.

Selinexor-Bortezomib-Dexamethasone: A Review in Previously Treated Multiple Myeloma

Selinexor [Nexpovio^® (EU); Xpovio^® (USA)] is a first-in-class, selective exportin-1 inhibitor. Oral selinexor once weekly in combination with subcutaneous bortezomib once weekly and oral dexamethasone twice weekly (selinexor-bortezomib-dexamethasone) is approved in the EU and USA for the treatment of adult patients with multiple myeloma who have received at least one prior therapy. In the open-label, randomized, phase 3 BOSTON trial, this regimen significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) compared with the standard bortezomib-dexamethasone regimen in patients with previously treated multiple myeloma. Selinexor-bortezomib-dexamethasone had a generally manageable tolerability profile and an acceptable safety profile in BOSTON, with a lower incidence of peripheral neuropathy (a bortezomib-induced toxicity) compared with bortezomib-dexamethasone. The triplet regimen uses less bortezomib and dexamethasone during the first 24 weeks of treatment. The efficacy and safety profiles of selinexor-bortezomib-dexamethasone, combined with its once-weekly administration of selinexor and bortezomib, make it a useful additional triplet therapy option for previously treated multiple myeloma.

The molecular mechanism and challenge of targeting XPO1 in treatment of relapsed and refractory myeloma

•

Significant progress has been made on the treatment of MM during past two decades.

•

Acquired drug-resistance continues to drive early relapse in primary refractory MM.

•

XPO1 over-expression and cargo mislocalization are associated with drug-resistance.

•

XPO1 inhibitor selinexor restores drug sensitivity to subsets of RR-MM cells.

Multiple myeloma (MM) treatment regimens have vastly improved since the introduction of immunomodulators, proteasome inhibitors, and anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies; however, MM is considered an incurable disease due to inevitable relapse and acquired drug resistance. Understanding the molecular mechanism by which drug resistance is acquired will help create novel strategies to prevent relapse and help develop novel therapeutics to treat relapsed/refractory (RR)-MM patients. Currently, only homozygous deletion/mutation of TP53 gene due to “double-hits” on Chromosome 17p region is consistently associated with a poor prognosis. The exciting discovery of XPO1 overexpression and mislocalization of its cargos in the RR-MM cells has led to a novel treatment options. Clinical studies have demonstrated that the XPO1 inhibitor selinexor can restore sensitivity of RR-MM to PIs and dexamethasone. We will elaborate on the problems of MM treatment strategies and discuss the mechanism and challenges of using XPO1 inhibitors in RR-MM therapies while deliberating potential solutions.

Revisiting Proteasome Inhibitors: Molecular Underpinnings of Their Development, Mechanisms of Resistance and Strategies to Overcome Anti-Cancer Drug Resistance

Proteasome inhibitors have shown relevant clinical activity in several hematological malignancies, namely in multiple myeloma and mantle cell lymphoma, improving patient outcomes such as survival and quality of life, when compared with other therapies. However, initial response to the therapy is a challenge as most patients show an innate resistance to proteasome inhibitors, and those that respond to the therapy usually develop late relapses suggesting the development of acquired resistance. The mechanisms of resistance to proteasome inhibition are still controversial and scarce in the literature. In this review, we discuss the development of proteasome inhibitors and the mechanisms of innate and acquired resistance to their activity—a major challenge in preclinical and clinical therapeutics. An improved understanding of these mechanisms is crucial to guiding the design of new and more effective drugs to tackle these devastating diseases. In addition, we provide a comprehensive overview of proteasome inhibitors used in combination with other chemotherapeutic agents, as this is a key strategy to combat resistance.

Hsp90-associated DNA replication checkpoint protein and proteasome-subunit components are involved in the age-related macular degeneration

Background:

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the leading cause of vision loss worldwide. However, the mechanisms involved in the development and progression of AMD are poorly delineated. We aimed to explore the critical genes involved in the progression of AMD.

Methods:

The differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in AMD retinal pigment epithelial (RPE)/choroid tissues were identified using the microarray datasets GSE99248 and GSE125564, which were downloaded from the gene expression omnibus database. The overlapping DEGs from the two datasets were screened to identify DEG-related biological pathways using gene ontology and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes enrichment analyses. The hub genes were identified from these DEGs through protein-protein interaction network analyses. The expression levels of hub genes were evaluated by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction following the induction of senescence in ARPE-19 with FK866. Following the identification of AMD-related key genes, the potential small molecule compounds targeting the key genes were predicted by PharmacoDB. Finally, a microRNA-gene interaction network was constructed.

Results:

Microarray analyses identified 174 DEGs in the AMD RPE compared to the healthy RPE samples. These DEGs were primarily enriched in the pathways involved in the regulation of DNA replication, cell cycle, and proteasome-mediated protein polyubiquitination. Among the top ten hub genes, HSP90AA1, CHEK1, PSMA4, PSMD4, and PSMD8 were upregulated in the senescent ARPE-19 cells. Additionally, the drugs targeting HSP90AA1, CHEK1, and PSMA4 were identified. We hypothesize that Hsa-miR-16-5p might target four out of the five key DEGs in the AMD RPE.

Conclusions:

Based on our findings, HSP90AA1 is likely to be a central gene controlling the DNA replication and proteasome-mediated polyubiquitination during the RPE senescence observed in the progression of AMD. Targeting HSP90AA1, CHEK1, PSMA4, PSMD4, and/or PSMD8 genes through specific miRNAs or small molecules might potentially alleviate the progression of AMD through attenuating RPE senescence.

Selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone versus bortezomib and dexamethasone in previously treated multiple myeloma: Outcomes by cytogenetic risk

In the phase 3 BOSTON study, patients with multiple myeloma (MM) after 1-3 prior regimens were randomized to once-weekly selinexor (an oral inhibitor of exportin 1 [XPO1]) plus bortezomib-dexamethasone (XVd) or twice-weekly bortezomib-dexamethasone (Vd). Compared with Vd, XVd was associated with significant improvements in median progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), and lower rates of peripheral neuropathy, with trends in overall survival (OS) favoring XVd. In BOSTON, 141 (35.1%) patients had MM with high-risk (presence of del[17p], t[4;14], t[14;16], or ≥4 copies of amp1q21) cytogenetics (XVd, n = 70; Vd, n = 71), and 261 (64.9%) exhibited standard-risk cytogenetics (XVd, n = 125; Vd, n = 136). Among patients with high-risk MM, median PFS was 12.91 months for XVd and 8.61 months for Vd (HR, 0.73 [95% CI, (0.4673, 1.1406)], p = 0.082), and ORRs were 78.6% and 57.7%, respectively (OR 2.68; p = 0.004). In the standard-risk subgroup, median PFS was 16.62 months for XVd and 9.46 months for Vd (HR 0.61; p = 0.004), and ORRs were 75.2% and 64.7%, respectively (OR 1.65; p = 0.033). The safety profiles of XVd and Vd in both subgroups were consistent with the overall population. These data suggest that selinexor can confer benefits to patients with MM regardless of cytogenetic risk. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03110562.