Triple-class Refractory Multiple Myeloma Research Articles

Outcomes of Triple Class (Proteasome Inhibitor, IMiDs and Monoclonal Antibody) Refractory Patients with Multiple Myeloma

Outcomes of Triple Class (Proteasome Inhibitor, IMiDs and Monoclonal Antibody) Refractory Patients with Multiple Myeloma

Phase 1b/2 Study of the First-in-Class SUMO-Activating Enzyme Inhibitor TAK-981 in Combination with Monoclonal Antibodies in Patients with Triple-Class Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Phase 1b/2 Study of the First-in-Class SUMO-Activating Enzyme Inhibitor TAK-981 in Combination with Monoclonal Antibodies in Patients with Triple-Class Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Real-World Treatment Patterns and Clinical, Economic, and Humanistic Burden in Triple-Class Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Analysis of the Connect ® Multiple Myeloma (MM) Disease Registry

Real-World Treatment Patterns and Clinical, Economic, and Humanistic Burden in Triple-Class Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Analysis of the Connect ® Multiple Myeloma (MM) Disease Registry

Treatment Patterns and Outcomes of Patients with Double-Class Refractory or Triple-Class Refractory Multiple Myeloma: A Retrospective US Electronic Health Record Database Study

Introduction: Patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) resistant to multiple drug classes remain a high unmet need population, despite advances in MM patient care. The objective of this study was to assess real-world treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with RRMM who had failed multiple prior lines of therapy (LOT) and were refractory to multiple drug classes to identify gaps in their treatment pathways.Methods: This longitudinal retrospective cohort study utilized the COTA de-identified real-world database derived from US electronic health records of partnered healthcare providers from Q3 1988 through Q1 2020. Adults with active RRMM previously exposed to a proteasome inhibitor (PI) and an immunomodulatory drug and who received ≥3 prior LOTs were identified. Patients were further categorized as refractory to a PI and an immunomodulatory drug (double-class refractory [DCR]) or additionally to an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody (i.e. daratumumab; triple-class refractory [TCR]). Determining refractory status was based on International Myeloma Working Group criteria.Index LOT was a new LOT after evidence of DCR or TCR status following ≥3 (DCR) or ≥4 (TCR) prior LOTs. Patient characteristics described included Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, International Staging System (ISS) stage, cytogenetic risk, age, index date, sex, and follow up time. Treatment pattern assessments included treatments received before/during/after index LOT, reasons for discontinuation, refractory status, and retreatment characteristics. Patient outcomes (overall survival [OS], duration of treatment [DOT], and time to next therapy [TTNT]) were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis methods.Results: After excluding patients who were aged <18 years at start of index LOT with no evidence of clinical activity and who participated in a clinical trial during index LOT, 381 (DCR) and 173 (TCR) patients were available for analysis. Median follow-up from index LOT initiation through end of data availability/death was 14 (DCR) and 8 (TCR) months. Demographic characteristics were consistent between DCR and TCR patients. Approximately half were aged ≥65 years (49% DCR; 53% TCR), majority had high-risk cytogenetics (56% DCR; 66% TCR) or prior autologous stem cell transplantation (>62%), and 14-16% had ISS stage III. Patients had a median of 3 (DCR) and 6 (TCR) prior LOTs.Prior to index LOT, bortezomib and lenalidomide were the most commonly received PI and immunomodulatory drug (received by >98% of DCR or TCR patients) and the most common PI and immunomodulatory drugs to which patients were refractory (71% and 84% DCR; 76% and 83% TCR, respectively).At index LOT, PI/immunomodulatory drug-based and daratumumab-based therapies remained the most common therapies. Bortezomib and lenalidomide had the longest time to refractory status and highest retreatment rates among DCR or TCR patients. Approximately 40% of TCR patients were retreated with daratumumab-based therapies after becoming refractory (Table).After index LOT, 70% of DCR and 58% of TCR patients continued to a subsequent LOT. Patients most frequently discontinued index LOT due to disease progression (59% DCR; 60% TCR), toxicity (23% DCR; 25% TCR), or doctor preference (14% DCR; 10% TCR). Median duration of gaps between LOTs generally were shorter than 1 month (Table).Median OS was 22.3 (DCR) and 11.6 (TCR) months. Median DOT was 3.3 (DCR) and 2.8 (TCR) months, and median TTNT was 4.1 (DCR) and 3.2 (TCR) months. In multivariate statistical analyses, inferior baseline ECOG performance scores, and high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities were associated with worse prognosis (higher risk of death, shorter DOT, and shorter TTNT) in DCR and TCR patients. Age was not a significant factor after adjusting for other baseline factors.Conclusions: Treatment options are limited for US patients with DCR and TCR RRMM. DCR and TCR patients were frequently retreated with a PI, an immunomodulatory drug, or daratumumab, despite refractoriness to these agents. Many DCR and TCR MM patients stopped active MM treatment after discontinuing index treatment. Patients with DCR and TCR MM have poor prognosis, especially among high cytogenetic risk and poor performance status patients. This study provides the benchmark for new therapies, like BCMA-targeted agents, to be tested in this population.Funding: GSK (Study 217353). [Display omitted] DisclosuresWang: GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Gorsh: GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. DerSarkissian: Analysis Group, Inc.: Current Employment. Paka: GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Bhak: Analysis Group, Inc.: Current Employment; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Boytsov: GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Zichlin: GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Analysis Group, Inc.: Consultancy, Current Employment. Sansbury: GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Yee: Analysis Group, Inc.: Current Employment; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Ferrante: GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Khanal: GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Analysis Group, Inc.: Current Employment. Noman: Analysis Group, Inc.: Current Employment; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Duh: Novartis: Other: I am an employee of Analysis Group, a consulting company that received funding from Novartis for this research study..

A Retrospective Database Analysis of Treatment Pathways in US Medicare Patients with Multiple Myeloma and Prior Exposure to Daratumumab, an Immunomodulatory Agent, and a Proteasome Inhibitor

Introduction: Recentreal-world data for multiple myeloma (MM) treatment patterns and outcomes are limited, particularly for patients with refractory or relapsed MM. As the MM treatment landscape evolves, it is important to understand how new treatments are integrated into patient treatment patterns. The aim of this study was to examine patient demographics, clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and survival among Medicare patients with MM following exposure to daratumumab (DAR), an immunomodulatory agent, and a proteasome inhibitor (PI).Methods: This was a retrospective database analysis utilizing the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services claims data during the study period of January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2018. The start of the study period was chosen to align with DAR market entry in the United States (FDA approval November 2015). Medicare patients, diagnosed with MM, and with existing claims for DAR, an immunomodulatory agent, and a PI (tri-exposure) were eligible for inclusion. Index tri-exposure was achieved once a patient had been exposed to all 3 MM treatments, regardless of their sequence. The index date was the first observed claim for any MM regimen (index line of therapy [LOT]) following tri-exposure. Patients were required to have ≥6 months of continuous enrollment prior to the index date (baseline period). Therapies given after the index LOT were defined as post-index therapy. Patient data were assessed until health plan disenrollment, death, or end of study period, whichever occurred first.Results: There were 1336 Medicare patients with MM who met the inclusion criteria. Of these patients, the mean age (standard deviation [SD]) at the index date was 71 (8.5) years and 705 (52.8%) were male. The Southern United States showed the largest representation of patients in this population (n=471, 35.3%). The top baseline comorbidities included respiratory infections (98.3%), osteoarthritis (86.8%), anemia (86.9%), hypertension (78.1%), dyslipidemia (66.5%), chronic pain/fibromyalgia (51.9%), acute or chronic kidney disease (44.5%), cardiac arrhythmia (45.81%), and neutropenia (47.98%).The mean (SD) number of days from the index date until the end of index LOT was 48.7 days (12.0). Among 949 patients (71.0%) who had post-index therapy, the mean (SD) time from the last observed claim for index LOT to the beginning of the post-index therapy and duration of post-index therapy was 51.8 (44.2) days and 57.8 (16.0) days, respectively. The median (range) duration of follow-up time from the index date was 223 (3─886) days. During the study follow-up period, 571 patients (42.7%) died, and the median (range) number of days from the index date until death was 173 (3─873) days.While there was variation in treatment sequencing leading to tri-exposure, the most frequent tri-exposure sequence was an immunomodulatory agent < PI < DAR (33.2% [See Table for overview of treatment sequencing]). Among patients who received index LOT following tri-exposure, 49.4% had triplet therapy and 29.8% had doublet therapy. The most common index LOT regimens were triplet: DAR/pomalidomide/dexamethasone (DEX; 7.6%), elotuzumab/lenalidomide/DEX (5.2%), and DAR/bortezomib/DEX (4.9%). The most common post-index LOT regimens were triplet (39.9%): DAR/pomalidomide (6.1%), carfilzomib/cyclophosphamide/DEX (3.7%), DAR/bortezomib/DEX (3.5%), and DAR/lenalidomide/DEX (3.5%). During follow-up, 52.8% of patients were retreated with DAR, 79% with PI, and 77.3% with immunomodulatory drugs.Conclusions: This study suggests wide variation in treatment sequencing and regimens after tri-exposure to DAR, an immunomodulatory agent, and a PI. Triplet regimens were predominant treatment after the tri-exposure and following the index LOT. Retreatment with the same agents was common. Among those who died, survival was often less than 1 year following tri-exposure. These results highlight the need for new treatment options in triple-class refractory MM settings.Funding: GSK (Study 213462) [Display omitted] DisclosuresBoytsov: GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Cyhaniuk: STATinMED Research: Current Employment. Leung: STATinMED Research: Current Employment. Wang: GlaxoSmithKline: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Hogea: GlaxoSmithKline, paid employee: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Ended employment in the past 24 months. Mudumby: STATinMED Research: Current Employment.

P-201: Triple-class refractory disease as a modern therapeutic benchmark for clinical trials testing new agents for relapsed refractory Multiple Myeloma

P-201: Triple-class refractory disease as a modern therapeutic benchmark for clinical trials testing new agents for relapsed refractory Multiple Myeloma

Bispecific Antibodies in Multiple Myeloma: Present and Future.

Overall survival of triple-class refractory multiple myeloma remains poor. Bispecific antibodies are a novel immunotherapeutic modality with a favorable safety profile and impressive preliminary efficacy in heavily treated patients. Although more data are needed, bispecifics will likely become an integral part of the multiple myeloma treatment paradigm in the near future. Studies in earlier lines of therapy and in combination with other active anti-multiple myeloma agents will help further define the role of bispecifics in multiple myeloma.

Novel Approaches to Treating Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma with a Focus on Recent Approvals of Belantamab Mafodotin and Selinexor.

Though survival outcomes in multiple myeloma patients have improved drastically over the past few decades, there still remains an ongoing need for effective and tolerable treatment options in the relapsed and refractory space. Encouragingly, there have been three recent FDA approvals for triple-class refractory multiple myeloma, and there is promising ongoing development of additional agents with varying novel mechanisms of action. Here, we will review the most recent data on both belantamab mafodotin, an antibody drug conjugate (ADC) targeting BCMA, and selinexor, a first-in-class selective inhibitor of XPO1, as well as touch on some of the recently published data for other immunotherapies in development, namely bispecific T cell engagers, ADCs, and CAR-T cell therapies.

Profile and Management of Toxicity of Selinexor and Belantamab Mafodotin for the Treatment of Triple Class Refractory Multiple Myeloma

Treatment options are limited for multiple myeloma patients who have developed four/five drug-refractory disease. Selinexor (Sel) and belantamab mafodotin (belamaf) were recently approved by the US FDA for treatment of RRMM. The toxicity profile of these drugs is a concern since these agents are used in patients who have already undergone multiple lines of treatment. In this review, we discuss the toxicity profile and strategies for the management of toxicities of Sel and belamaf for the treatment of RRMM. We conducted a comprehensive literature search on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Clinicaltrials.gov using the terms “selinexor”, “belantamab”, “belamaf”, and “multiple myeloma” without applying any limitations based on the date of the study, language, or country of origin. The most common hematological toxicity associated with these two drugs is thrombocytopenia. Cytopenias, constitutional symptoms, gastrointestinal effects, and hyponatremia are the major toxicities of Sel. Keratopathy and anemia are the major toxicities of belamaf. Treatment modifications and dose interruption are usually needed when side effects are more than grade II. As these are newer drugs with limited data, continuous surveillance and monitoring are warranted during the treatment course with early mitigation strategies.

Determination of the Value Contribution of Belantamab Mafodotin (Belamaf; BLENREP®) for the Treatment of Triple-Class Refractory Multiple Myeloma in Spain through Reflective Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

Background: Most patients with multiple myeloma (MM) have an initial response to treatment, however the majority will ultimately progress and develop treatment resistance to current mechanisms of action (proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory agents, monoclonal antibodies), evolving to Triple-Class Refractory MM (TCR-MM). Belantamab mafodotin (Belamaf) is a first-in-class immune-conjugate that binds to the B cell maturation antigen (BCMA) receptor, indicated as monotherapy for the treatment of TCR-MM. Reflective Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) offers a methodology that allows determination of what represents value in a given indication considering all relevant criteria for healthcare decision-making in a transparent and systematic manner and from the perspective of relevant stakeholders. The aim of this study was to determine, using reflective MCDA methodology, the relative value contribution of Belamaf for treating TCR-MM in Spain when compared to two potential therapeutic alternatives for this population: pomalidomide plus cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone [PomCyDex] and selinexor plus dexamethasone [Selinexor+Dex]. Methods: A literature review was conducted to populate an adapted MCDA framework for orphan-drug evaluation in Spain. The adapted framework included 9 quantitative criteria and 3 contextual criteria. A panel of 13 experts (haematologists, hospital pharmacists, decision-makers) were trained in MCDA methodology and scored two evidence matrices (Belamaf vs. PomCyDex and vs. Selinexor+Dex). Results: TCR-MM is considered a severe disease (4.4±0.5) with important unmet needs (4.2±0.7). Compared with PomCyDex, Belamaf is perceived to have a better efficacy profile (2.5±1.3) based on achieving similar outcomes in a population with worse prognosis. Belamaf presents a positive trend towards a better safety/tolerability profile (0.7±1.7) and a positive quality of life (QoL) profile (1.5±1.3). When compared with Selinexor+Dex, Belamaf is regarded as having a better efficacy profile (2.1±1.0) (based on improvements in duration of response, overall response rate, depth of response, and global survival). Belamaf has a better safety/tolerability profile (2.8±0.9) given the hematologic and general toxicity observed with Selinexor+Dex, and a positive QoL profile (2.3±0.9). Both direct (medical, excluding pharmacological) and indirect costs were considered similar in both treatment comparisons. Overall, Belamaf is regarded as providing a high therapeutic impact (3.5±0.8) and supported by high-quality evidence (3.1±1.0). Belamaf's global value contribution is perceived as positive when compared to PomCyDex (score: 0.44) and to Selinexor+Dex (score: 0.51). Conclusions: Based on reflective MCDA methodology and stakeholders’ experience in clinical management of TCR-MM in Spain, Belamaf is considered as adding greater benefit in terms of efficacy, safety and QoL attributes when compared with both PomCyDex and Selinexor+Dex. Expected impact on direct medical and indirect costs (without considering price) are similar in both comparisons.

Selinexor containing regimens in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) previously treated with anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (αCD38 mAbs).

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.

Effects of weekly selinexor, bortezomib, dexamethasone (XVd) versus standard twice weekly bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) on RAS-mutated previously treated multiple myeloma (MM).

8027 Background: Activating mutations of the RAS genes NRAS, KRAS, and HRAS ( RASmut) occur in up to 50% of MM and portend poor survival and high recurrence rates. MM cells with RASmut are susceptible to inhibition of germinal center kinase (GCK), resulting in IKAROS degradation independent of cereblon (CRBN). Selinexor is a selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE) compound that can induce IKAROS degradation through CRBN-independent pathways to overcome immunomodulatory drug resistance. We explored the benefit of selinexor treatment for pts with RASmut MM. Methods: In the randomized BOSTON study, pts with MM after 1-3 therapies received weekly XVd or twice weekly Vd. In the single-arm STORM study pts with penta-treated, triple class refractory MM were treated with twice weekly Xd. Both treatment regimens are now FDA approved. Mutations were assessed post-hoc by exome sequencing of 119 and 52 pts from BOSTON and STORM, respectively. Pts were considered RASmut if their MM had NRAS, KRAS or HRAS mutations in codons 12, 13 or 61. Results: There were 54 pts (45%) with RASmut in BOSTON (XVd = 26, Vd = 28), and 17 (33%) in STORM. In BOSTON, pts with RASmut MM treated with XVd had significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) than those treated with Vd (median [med] = 12.9 vs 6.7 months [mo], hazard ratio [HR] = 0.48 [95% CI 0.24-0.97], p = 0.039). For pts treated with Vd, those with RASmut had significantly shorter overall survival (OS) compared to RASwild-type (WT) (med = 16.8 mo vs not reached [NR], HR = 2.87 [95% CI 1.03-7.99], p = 0.035). PFS was not significantly different (med = 6.74 vs 9.82 mo, HR = 1.64 [95% CI 0.88-3.07], p = 0.122). Amongst pts on XVd, there was no difference in survival between RASmut and RASWT pts (PFS: med = 12.8 vs 12.9 mo, HR = 1.08 [95% CI 0.52-2.26], p = 0.83; OS: med = NR vs NR, HR = 0.94 [95% CI 0.36-2.45], p = 0.91). In STORM, pts with RASmut had shorter OS compared to RASwt pts (med = 6.1 vs NR, HR = 2.05 [95% CI 1.22-5.19], p = 0.010). Preliminary studies to explore the mechanisms of action related to RASmut MM sensitivity to XVd demonstrated that selinexor treatment in vitro leads to downregulation of GCK. Conclusions: Despite typically having the worst outcomes, pts with RASmut MM had a similar benefit from XVd as RASWT MM, showing that the XVd combination can overcome RASmut. Mechanistically, selinexor induced down regulation of GCK and enhanced killing of RASmut MM cells. With a manageable safety profile, the XVd regimen could provide a viable treatment option to improve survival of pts with MM with RAS mutations. Clinical trial information: NCT03110562. [Table: see text]

RTID-08. A PHASE 1/2 STUDY OF SELINEXOR IN COMBINATION WITH STANDARD OF CARE THERAPY FOR NEWLY DIAGNOSED OR RECURRENT GLIOBLASTOMA (ndGBM OR rGBM)

Abstract BACKGROUND GBM is the most common and most aggressive primary brain tumor with poor prognosis and median overall survival (mOS) of patients with ndGBM and rGBM being 15 vs 5-7 months, respectively. Selinexor is a first-in class, oral, selective nuclear export inhibitor which forces nuclear retention and reactivation of many tumor suppressor proteins. Selinexor with low dose dexamethasone was recently approved for patients with triple-class refractory multiple myeloma. Additionally, selinexor monotherapy has demonstrated broad activity in other hematologic and solid malignancies. In a Phase 2 study in rGBM (NCT01986348), selinexor demonstrated encouraging intratumoral penetration and single-agent efficacy at 80 mg once weekly with durable response and disease stabilization in heavily pretreated patients. Preclinical GBM studies showed synergy when combining selinexor with radiation, temozolomide and lomustine. METHOD This is a phase 1 (PH-1) dose finding study followed by a 1:1 randomized phase 2 (PH-2; n= 350) efficacy exploration trial to independently evaluate 3 different combination regimens: Arm A: radiation +/- selinexor in uMGMT ndGBM; Arm B: radiation and temozolomide +/- selinexor in MGMT ndGBM; Arm C:omustine +/- selinexor in first relapse rGBM following frontline radiation and temozolomide. The PH-1 primary endpoint is MTD/RP2D, with secondary endpoints of ORR per modified RANO, duration of response (DOR), PFS, and OS. The PH-2 primary endpoint for Arms A and B in ndGBM is PFS, with key secondary endpoints being OS, PFS6, ORR, DOR. For Arm C, the PH-2 primary endpoint is OS while key secondary endpoints are PFS, PFS6, ORR, DOR. The study has 70% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.67 between selinexor and control for primary efficacy for arms A &amp; B, and 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.70 for arm C. We are currently enrolling patients nationwide. Clinical trial identifier: NCT04421378

Effect of Prior Treatment with Proteasome Inhibitors on the Efficacy and Safety of Once-Weekly Selinexor, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone in Comparison with Twice-Weekly Bortezomib and Dexamethasone in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Subgroup Analysis from the Boston Study

Effect of Prior Treatment with Proteasome Inhibitors on the Efficacy and Safety of Once-Weekly Selinexor, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone in Comparison with Twice-Weekly Bortezomib and Dexamethasone in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Subgroup Analysis from the Boston Study

Once Weekly Selinexor, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone (SVd) Versus Twice Weekly Bortezomib and Dexamethasone (Vd) in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: High-Risk Cytogenetic Risk Planned Subgroup Analyses from the Phase 3 Boston Study

Once Weekly Selinexor, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone (SVd) Versus Twice Weekly Bortezomib and Dexamethasone (Vd) in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: High-Risk Cytogenetic Risk Planned Subgroup Analyses from the Phase 3 Boston Study

Impact of Prior Therapies on the Safety and Efficacy of Once Weekly Selinexor, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone Compared with Twice Weekly Bortezomib and Dexamethasone in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Results from the Boston Study

Impact of Prior Therapies on the Safety and Efficacy of Once Weekly Selinexor, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone Compared with Twice Weekly Bortezomib and Dexamethasone in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Results from the Boston Study

Once Weekly Selinexor, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone Versus Twice Weekly Bortezomib and Dexamethasone in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Age and Frailty Subgroup Analyses from the Phase 3 Boston Study

Once Weekly Selinexor, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone Versus Twice Weekly Bortezomib and Dexamethasone in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Age and Frailty Subgroup Analyses from the Phase 3 Boston Study

US Budget Impact Model for Selinexor in Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

ObjectiveTo estimate the budgetary impact of adopting selinexor (XPOVIO; Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc.) for the treatment of adult patients with penta-refractory multiple myeloma (MM) from the perspective of a third-party payer in the United States (US).MethodsA budget impact analysis was conducted in one-year increments for the first 3 years after the introduction of selinexor for a private payer or Medicare Part D. Total annual treatment costs (2018 US dollars) were calculated as the sum of drug costs, costs of adverse events (AEs; grade ≥3), along with ongoing best supportive care costs. The number of eligible patients was derived from national epidemiology statistics, healthcare databases, and published literature.ResultsIn the base-case analysis, selinexor was associated with a per member per month (PMPM) cost of $0.0103 in year 3, assuming a market uptake of 64%, for a hypothetical private payer plan with one million members and four eligible patients. In a scenario analysis with 16 eligible patients with triple-class refractory MM regardless of the line of therapy (this additional scenario analysis was performed with an eligible population that does not fit squarely within the approved label for selinexor but was performed strictly for the purpose of demonstrating the results of the budget impact model when based on a larger pool of eligible patients), the estimated PMPM cost in year 3 was $0.0388. The model showed comparable sensitivity to treatment duration, wholesale acquisition cost for selinexor, and year 1 uptake. The base-case analysis conducted from the perspective of Medicare Part D was associated with a PMPM cost of $0.0078 in year 3 with 159 eligible patients.ConclusionsThe model estimates a small and manageable budget impact of adopting selinexor into a third-party US payer plan, given the low prevalence of penta-refractory MM.

Quality-of-life (QOL) analyses in patients with multiple myeloma: Results from the selinexor (KPT-330) treatment of refractory myeloma (STORM) phase IIb study.

e20522 Background: Selinexor, a novel oral selective inhibitor of nuclear export, was recently approved for use in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM). The efficacy and safety of selinexor and dexamethasone was evaluated in a phase 2b, single-arm, open-label, multicenter trial in patients with penta-exposed, triple-class refractory MM. Patient-reported outcomes were measured using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Multiple Myeloma (FACT-MM) assessment. While minimal clinically important differences (MCID) have been established for other FACT scales, there is no known, validated definition of MCID for the FACT-MM. This study reports results of QoL analyses in patients with MM enrolled in the STORM phase 2b trial and examines two approaches to calculate MCID for the FACT-MM. Methods: FACT-MM data were collected at baseline, on day 1 of each 4-week cycle, and at end of treatment (EOT) during the STORM phase 2b trial. Change from baseline was analyzed for the FACT-MM total score, FACT-trial outcome index (TOI), FACT-General (FACT-G), and the MM-specific domain. Two approaches for evaluating MCID were explored: the first based on patient-reported assessment of meaningful change, defined as 10% of the instrument range (Ringash 2007), and the second based on mean baseline differences between ECOG groups (0 vs 1 to 2) based on patient level data. Additional analyses were performed to identify trends among treatment responders and non-responders, including a difference-in-difference (DID) analysis to compare changes between baseline and EOT. Results: Eighty patients had sufficient data to be included in longitudinal QOL analyses. MCID analyses demonstrated that most patients did not experience decline during the first six cycles of treatment; this pattern was consistent with MCID defined either as 10% of the instrument range (range 54% to 75% of patients), or as an ECOG-based anchor (range: 54% to 73% of patients). The DID analysis found that the mean change in QoL of non-responders decreased significantly between baseline and EOT, while responders had no significant change. This difference between responders and non-responders was significant for the FACT-G. Conclusions: Most patients did not experience QoL decline during the early cycles of selinexor treatment during the STORM 2b trial. The MCID decline, evaluated by two approaches, was greater among treatment non-responders than responders. A DID approach demonstrated greater decline between baseline and EOT for non-responders. Clinical trial information: NCT02336815.

Venetoclax: the first anti-myeloma agent with a reliable biomarker.

Venetoclax: the first anti-myeloma agent with a reliable biomarker.