Weekly Selinexor, Bortizomib and Dexamethasone (SVd) Versus Twice Weekly Bortizomib and Dexamethasone (Vd) in Chinese Patients with Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM): Primary Analysis of Phase 3 Bench Study

Introduction: Selinexor (ATG-010) is a first-in-class, orally bioavailable XPO1 inhibitor which binds to exportin 1, inhibiting nuclear export of tumor suppressor proteins. It synergizes with proteasome inhibitors (PIs) in preclinical studies and produces high response rates in patients (pts) with PI refractory and non-refractory MM. In the global phase 3 BOSTON study (NCT03110562), SVd significantly improved progression free survival (PFS), compared to twice weekly Vd [harzard ratio (HR) 0.70)]. The China registrational bridging study, BENCH (NCT04939142) aimed to demonstrate the consistency of efficacy and safety outcomes between these 2 studies. Methods: This phase 3, randomized, open label, study was conducted at 33 sites in China. The adult pts with RRMM, who had previously been treated with 1 to 3 lines of therapy, were randomly allocated (2:1) to receive SVd: selinexor (100 mg once per week), bortezomib (1.3mg/m2 once per week) and dexamethasone (20 mg twice per week), or Vd: bortezomib (1.3mg/m2 twice per week for the first 24 weeks and once per week thereafter) and dexamethasone (20 mg four times per week for the first 24 weeks and twice per week thereafter). Pts receiving Vd could cross over to either SVd or Sd treatment after confirmation of progression. The primary endpoint was PFS in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. The key secondary endpoints included ORR (≥PR), response rate of ≥VGPR and the incidence of Grade ≥2 peripheral neuropathy (PN). Efficacy was assessed by independent review committee per IMWG 2016. The PFS HR should reach less than 0.85 to show consistency (at least 50% efficacy with BOSTON study). Results: As of 9th May 2024, a total of 154 Chinese RRMM pts were randomized to SVd group (n=101) or Vd group (n=53) and 152 pts received at least one dose of study drug (safety population). The baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were approximately balanced across the two treatment groups. The median age was 62 (range: 33-78). 87 pts (56.5%) were male and 67 pts (43.5%) were female. R-ISS stage III and high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (including del(17p), t(14;16), t(4;14), 1q21) were present in 18 (11.7%) and 105 (68.2%) pts, respectively. However, SVd group included more pts with extramedullary disease than Vd group [24 (23.8%) vs 4 (7.5%)]. At a median follow-up time of 20.6 months (range:10.2-33.4), the median PFS was 8.1 months with SVd group and 6.3 months with Vd group. The HR reached 0.74 (95% CI 0.48-1.15; P=0.180). A similar reduction in the risk of progression was observed for SVd group between BENCH and BOSTON study. The ORR was higher in SVd group than in Vd group (72.3% vs 62.3%, P=0.173). SVd group had a significantly higher proportion of pts with response of VGPR or better (45.5% vs 22.6%, P=0.005). Among pts with response of CR or better, 59% (13/22) vs 25% (1/4) (SVd vs Vd) achieved MRD negativity (<1x10-5). The median time to response and the median duration of response were 0.8 vs 1.4 months and 9.7 vs 7.2 months (SVd vs Vd) respectively. The median overall survival was not reached in both groups. The most frequent Grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) for SVd and Vd (≥10%) were thrombocytopenia (55.0% vs 28.8%), lymphocytopenia (37.0% vs 17.3%), anemia (25% vs 17.3%), neutropenia (17.0% vs 3.8%), pneumonia (14.0% vs 13.5%), cataract (13.0% vs 0%), diarrhea (6.0% vs 15.4%) and hypokalemia (8.0% vs 11.5%). The incidence of Grade≥2 PN was significantly lower in SVd than in Vd group (8% vs 32.7%, P=0.001). Conclusion: SVd regimen decreased the risk of progression and obtained much more profound responses compared to standard Vd regimen in Chinese pts with RRMM. The incidence of Grade ≥2 PN were significantly reduced. The results of BENCH study were consistent with the BOSTON study despite differences in patient populations and the primary end point achieved.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Blood
Published
2024-11-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2024-202893
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Multiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.91
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Weekly Selinexor, Bortizomib and Dexamethasone (SVd) Versus Twice Weekly Bortizomib and Dexamethasone (Vd) in Chinese Patients with Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM): Primary Analysis of Phase 3 Bench Study

Peng Liu, Jin Lu, Xiaosheng Fang, Qingshu Zeng et al.
2 citations
Blood
Multiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
0.91
article

Weekly Selinexor, Bortizomib and Dexamethasone (SVd) Versus Twice Weekly Bortizomib and Dexamethasone (Vd) in Chinese Patients with Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM): Primary Analysis of Phase 3 Bench Study

Peng Liu, Jin Lu, Xiaosheng Fang, Qingshu Zeng, Zhi Guo, Chunrui Li, Jianyu Weng, Jian Hou, Zhuogang Liu, Chunkang Chang, Xin Du, Yanjuan He, Yuping Zhong, Ming Hou, Fei Li, Wei Wang, Jing Liu, Lijuan Chen, Hong Liu, Yu Yang, Yafei Wang, Liangquan Geng, Baijun Fang, Jun Zhao, Zhen Cai, Yongqiang Wei, Xiaobing Huang, Jian‐Qing Mi, Xi Zhang, Zhongjun Xia, Rong Fu, Wen Gao, Dongping Huang, Guifang Ouyang
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Introduction: Selinexor (ATG-010) is a first-in-class, orally bioavailable XPO1 inhibitor which binds to exportin 1, inhibiting nuclear export of tumor suppressor proteins. It synergizes with proteasome inhibitors (PIs) in preclinical studies and produces high response rates in patients (pts) with PI refractory and non-refractory MM. In the global phase 3 BOSTON study (NCT03110562), SVd significantly improved progression free survival (PFS), compared to twice weekly Vd [harzard ratio (HR) 0.70)]. The China registrational bridging study, BENCH (NCT04939142) aimed to demonstrate the consistency of efficacy and safety outcomes between these 2 studies. Methods: This phase 3, randomized, open label, study was conducted at 33 sites in China. The adult pts with RRMM, who had previously been treated with 1 to 3 lines of therapy, were randomly allocated (2:1) to receive SVd: selinexor (100 mg once per week), bortezomib (1.3mg/m2 once per week) and dexamethasone (20 mg twice per week), or Vd: bortezomib (1.3mg/m2 twice per week for the first 24 weeks and once per week thereafter) and dexamethasone (20 mg four times per week for the first 24 weeks and twice per week thereafter). Pts receiving Vd could cross over to either SVd or Sd treatment after confirmation of progression. The primary endpoint was PFS in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. The key secondary endpoints included ORR (≥PR), response rate of ≥VGPR and the incidence of Grade ≥2 peripheral neuropathy (PN). Efficacy was assessed by independent review committee per IMWG 2016. The PFS HR should reach less than 0.85 to show consistency (at least 50% efficacy with BOSTON study). Results: As of 9th May 2024, a total of 154 Chinese RRMM pts were randomized to SVd group (n=101) or Vd group (n=53) and 152 pts received at least one dose of study drug (safety population). The baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were approximately balanced across the two treatment groups. The median age was 62 (range: 33-78). 87 pts (56.5%) were male and 67 pts (43.5%) were female. R-ISS stage III and high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (including del(17p), t(14;16), t(4;14), 1q21) were present in 18 (11.7%) and 105 (68.2%) pts, respectively. However, SVd group included more pts with extramedullary disease than Vd group [24 (23.8%) vs 4 (7.5%)]. At a median follow-up time of 20.6 months (range:10.2-33.4), the median PFS was 8.1 months with SVd group and 6.3 months with Vd group. The HR reached 0.74 (95% CI 0.48-1.15; P=0.180). A similar reduction in the risk of progression was observed for SVd group between BENCH and BOSTON study. The ORR was higher in SVd group than in Vd group (72.3% vs 62.3%, P=0.173). SVd group had a significantly higher proportion of pts with response of VGPR or better (45.5% vs 22.6%, P=0.005). Among pts with response of CR or better, 59% (13/22) vs 25% (1/4) (SVd vs Vd) achieved MRD negativity (<1x10-5). The median time to response and the median duration of response were 0.8 vs 1.4 months and 9.7 vs 7.2 months (SVd vs Vd) respectively. The median overall survival was not reached in both groups. The most frequent Grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) for SVd and Vd (≥10%) were thrombocytopenia (55.0% vs 28.8%), lymphocytopenia (37.0% vs 17.3%), anemia (25% vs 17.3%), neutropenia (17.0% vs 3.8%), pneumonia (14.0% vs 13.5%), cataract (13.0% vs 0%), diarrhea (6.0% vs 15.4%) and hypokalemia (8.0% vs 11.5%). The incidence of Grade≥2 PN was significantly lower in SVd than in Vd group (8% vs 32.7%, P=0.001). Conclusion: SVd regimen decreased the risk of progression and obtained much more profound responses compared to standard Vd regimen in Chinese pts with RRMM. The incidence of Grade ≥2 PN were significantly reduced. The results of BENCH study were consistent with the BOSTON study despite differences in patient populations and the primary end point achieved.

BloodVol. 144(Supplement 1)
Qingdao University (CN), Ningbo University (CN), University of Science and Technology of China (CN), Central South University (CN), University of Electronic Science and Technology of China (CN), Army Medical University (CN), Sun Yat-sen University (CN), Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN), Capital Medical University (CN), Anhui Medical University (CN), Nantong University (CN), Peking University (CN), Fudan University (CN), Renji Hospital (CN), Ruijin Hospital (CN), Tianjin Medical University General Hospital (CN), Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital (CN), Zhengzhou University (CN), Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University (CN), First Affiliated Hospital of Jiangxi Medical College (CN), Nanfang Hospital (CN), Shandong Provincial Hospital (CN), Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University (CN), Xinqiao Hospital (CN), Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences & Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital (CN), Qingdao Municipal Hospital (CN), Peking University People's Hospital (CN), Zhongshan Hospital (CN), The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University (CN), Anhui Provincial Hospital (CN), First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University (CN), Henan Cancer Hospital (CN), Shanghai Institute of Hematology (CN), Jiangsu Province Hospital (CN), Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (CN), Third Xiangya Hospital (CN), Xiangya Hospital Central South University (CN), Tongji Hospital (CN), Qilu Hospital of Shandong University (CN), Regend Therapeutics (China) (CN), Shandong First Medical University (CN), Shenzhen Second People's Hospital (CN), First Affiliated Hospital Zhejiang University (CN), First Affiliated Hospital of Wannan Medical College (CN), Huazhong University of Science and Technology (CN), Southern Medical University (CN), China Medical University (CN)
Good health and well-being, Partnerships for the goals
Openalex Percentile: Top 21%
Multiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
0.91
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.