TY - JOUR
T1 - An evaluation of selinexor’s clinical trial portfolio
T2 - a cross-sectional study
AU - Elfar, Annes
AU - Tran, Andrew V.
AU - Case, Joseph
AU - Wayant, Cole
AU - Hughes, Griffin K.
AU - McIntire, Ryan
AU - Gardner, Brooke
AU - Ladd, Chase
AU - Peña, Andriana M.
AU - Tuia, Jordan
AU - Haslam, Alyson
AU - Prasad, Vinay
AU - Vassar, Matt
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s), 2025.
PY - 2025/1/1
Y1 - 2025/1/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - health policy
KW - lymphoma
KW - multiple myeloma
KW - overall survival
KW - refractory disease
KW - selinexor
KW - toxic
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=105008188332&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/20406207251329174
DO - 10.1177/20406207251329174
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:105008188332
SN - 2040-6207
VL - 16
JO - Therapeutic Advances in Hematology
JF - Therapeutic Advances in Hematology
M1 - 20406207251329174
ER -