Götze, Katharina

Abstract Introduction: Standardized reporting of clinical trials results for MDS is essential to improve clinical interpretation and cross-study comparison. However, reporting of patient characteristics, response criteria, and endpoints in publications is often inconsistent; there is no systemic analysis of MDS trial reporting available. We conducted a systematic review of published MDS trial manuscripts on behalf of the international consortium for MDS (icMDS) to assess variability in reporting practices. Methods We searched ClinicalTrials.gov to identify all clinical trials registered for adults (≥18 years) with MDS that reported results between 2015-2024. Clinical trials that included acute myeloid leukemia (AML) or MDS/myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) were included if they enrolled ≥5 MDS patients. We excluded trials without an MDS cohort; non-therapeutic trials; trials focused on transplant interventions; or those which enrolled solid malignancies or other hematologic malignancies (chronic myeloid leukemia or lymphoid diseases). Finally, trials were required to have a manuscript available on Larvol, PubMed, or Google Scholar. Trials were categorized by disease risk (lower-risk [LR] vs. higher-risk [HR]) and trial phase (early phase [EP] vs. late phase [LP]). Results We identified 502 MDS trials on ClinicalTrials.gov, of which 351 did not meet inclusion criteria and 79 lacked a manuscript. A total of 72 trials (32 EP, 40 LP) with 80 publications (34 EP, 46 LP) were analyzed. Frequently reported baseline characteristics included age (100% EP, 100% LP), disease risk (74% EP, 74% LP), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (85% EP, 72% LP), prior treatments (71% EP, 67% LP), and RBC transfusion dependency (32% EP, 70% LP). Less frequently reported characteristics included blood counts (hemoglobin [Hb; 38% EP, 54% LP], platelet count [38% EP, 54% LP], neutrophil count [24% EP and LP]) and bone marrow blasts (29% EP, 43% LP). Although disease risk was widely reported, definitions varied: IPSS and IPSS-R were each reported in 54% of manuscripts, while IPSS-M appeared in only 3%. Cytogenetic risk was separately reported in 39% of manuscripts (38% EP, 39% LP), and mutational data in 45% (47% EP, 43% LP). Responses per IWG 2006 criteria were reported in 84% of manuscripts. The primary endpoint involved safety/tolerability in 85% of EP manuscripts, though definitions were variable; recommended phase 2 dose was the most common (26% of EP manuscripts). In LP trials, primary endpoints were risk-specific: transfusion independence (TI) in 77% of LR, overall response rate (ORR) in 28% of HR, and complete remission (CR) or overall survival (OS) in 22% of HR. In HR manuscripts, CR was reported in 100%, ORR in 73%, hematologic improvement (HI) in 48%, RBC-TI in 23%, and OS in 80%. However, seven different definitions were used for ORR: CR + marrow CR + partial remission + HI per IWG 2006 was most common (35%). Event-free survival was reported in 25%; progression-free survival and relapse-free survival in 13%; and leukemia-free survival in 5%. Early mortality rate was reported in 35% (18% EP, 56% LP) and transplant rate in 58% (50% EP, 67% LP). Only 47% of HR and 90% of LR manuscripts identified HI-eligible patients. In LR-MDS, RBC-TI was reported in 72% of manuscripts but used six definitions. The most common were RBC-TI ≥8 weeks at any time during treatment (24%), ≥8 weeks within 28 weeks of treatment (13%), ≥8 weeks with Hb increase ≥1.0 (4%), ≥12 weeks with Hb increase ≥1.5 (4%), and ≥16 weeks within 24 weeks of treatment (12%). The remainder did not report RBC-TI, did not define it, or used a custom definition not used in another trial. HI was reported in 80% of LR papers with most of those reporting HI using IWG 2006 criteria (90%). Conclusion Reporting of baseline characteristics, response criteria, and outcomes is inconsistent in MDS clinical trials, with wide variability in response definitions, including ORR and TI. This heterogeneity limits interpretability, hampers historical comparisons and may obscure efficacy signals. Our findings highlight the need for standardized reporting guidelines to ensure clarity and consistency in MDS trial publications. As a next phase of this effort, we will conduct a formal Delphi process among icMDS experts to establish consensus recommendations for minimal and optimal MDS clinical trial reporting in manuscripts by disease risk (LR/HR) and trial phase (EP/LP).

PURPOSE Antitumor activity in preclinical models and a phase I study of patients with dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DD-LPS) was observed with selinexor. We evaluated the clinical benefit of selinexor in patients with previously treated DD-LPS whose sarcoma progressed on approved agents. METHODS SEAL was a phase II-III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients age 12 years or older with advanced DD-LPS who had received two-five lines of therapy were randomly assigned (2:1) to selinexor (60 mg) or placebo twice weekly in 6-week cycles (crossover permitted). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included for safety analysis (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02606461 ). RESULTS Two hundred eighty-five patients were enrolled (selinexor, n = 188; placebo, n = 97). PFS was significantly longer with selinexor versus placebo: hazard ratio (HR) 0.70 (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.95; one-sided P = .011; medians 2.8 v 2.1 months), as was time to next treatment: HR 0.50 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.66; one-sided P < .0001; medians 5.8 v 3.2 months). With crossover, no difference was observed in overall survival. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade versus grade 3 or 4 with selinexor were nausea (151 [80.7%] v 11 [5.9]), decreased appetite (113 [60.4%] v 14 [7.5%]), and fatigue (96 [51.3%] v 12 [6.4%]). Four (2.1%) and three (3.1%) patients died in the selinexor and placebo arms, respectively. Exploratory RNA sequencing analysis identified that the absence of CALB1 expression was associated with longer PFS with selinexor compared with placebo (median 6.9 v 2.2 months; HR, 0.19; P = .001). CONCLUSION Patients with advanced, refractory DD-LPS showed improved PFS and time to next treatment with selinexor compared with placebo. Supportive care and dose reductions mitigated side effects of selinexor. Prospective validation of CALB1 expression as a predictive biomarker for selinexor in DD-LPS is warranted.