An evaluation of selinexor’s clinical trial portfolio: a cross-sectional study

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

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.

Original languageEnglish
Article number20406207251329174
JournalTherapeutic Advances in Hematology
Volume16
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Jan 2025

Keywords

  • health policy
  • lymphoma
  • multiple myeloma
  • overall survival
  • refractory disease
  • selinexor
  • toxic

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'An evaluation of selinexor’s clinical trial portfolio: a cross-sectional study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this