Shah, Jatin J.

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.

Abstract Introduction: Patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (RR DLBCL) who cannot tolerate or who are not eligible for autologous or chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapy have limited therapeutic options and suboptimal long-term outcomes. In patients who were not eligible for HSCT, the rituximab plus gemcitabine, dexamethasone and cisplatin (R-GDP) regimen (and variations using methylprednisolone or carboplatin/oxaliplatin) have shown an overall response rates (ORR) of ~50%, a complete response (CR) rate of ~25% (Gopal, Leuk Lymphoma, 2010), and a median progression-free survival (PFS) and an overall survival (OS) of 3 and 9 months, respectively (Crump, Hematol Oncol Clin N Am. 2016; Gopal Leuk Lymphoma, 2010; Ng, Br J Cancer, 2005; Sirohi, Hematology, 2007; Barton, Eur J Haematol. 2015; Moccia Leuk Lymphoma, 2017). Selinexor is an oral small molecule selective inhibitor of exportin-1 (XPO1) mediated nuclear export (SINE) compound leading to activation of tumor suppressor proteins and reduction in oncoprotein levels. It also reduces the expression of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) damage repair proteins and therefore potentiates DNA damage-based therapies leading to an increased death of cancer cells. Selinexor has synergistic effects with gemcitabine and cisplatin, and enhanced anti-lymphoma effects with dexamethasone. In the SADAL study (n=134), single-agent oral selinexor 60 mg twice weekly induced an ORR of 29% and a CR rate of 13% in patients with RR DLBCL. The response rates were consistent across various subgroups including patients &lt;70 vs ≥70 years old, those with de novo and transformed DLBCL, and GCB and non-GCB subtypes of DLBCL. The median duration of response (DOR) was 9.3 months, and 23 months for patients who achieved CR. OS was 9.0 months. In June 2020, selinexor monotherapy was approved in the US for the treatment of adult patients with RR DLBCL, not otherwise specified, including DLBCL arising from follicular lymphoma, after at least 2 lines of systemic therapy. Selinexor in combination with R-GDP was evaluated in a Phase 1 clinical trial (SELINDA), in which patients with DLBCL received either 40 or 60 mg selinexor once or twice weekly in combination with standard dose R-GDP. The recommended phase 2 dose for further exploration was 40 or 60 mg once weekly with an ORR of 60-80%. Therefore, combining selinexor with R-GDP is expected to improve response rates, and continuation of treatment with single-agent selinexor is expected to prolong the duration of responses, improve PFS (and potentially OS) in patients with RR DLBCL. Materials and methods: XPORT-DLBCL-030 is a Phase 2/3, multicenter study. The Phase 2 portion of the study is an open-label randomized study to identify the optimal dose of selinexor (40 or 60 mg) in combination with R-GDP in patients (n=120) with RR DLBCL. Patients ≥18 years with 1-3 prior lines of therapy and ECOG performance status ≤2 who are not intended for HSCT or CAR-T therapy are randomized 1:1:1 to one of 3 treatment arms: Arm 1: selinexor 40 mg+R-GDP (S40+R-GDP); Arm 2: selinexor 60 mg+R-GDP (S60 + R-GDP); Arm 3: R-GDP. Combination treatment will be given for up to 6 cycles (21 days/cycle). After completing the SR-GDP combination therapy (EoC), patients in Arms 1 and 2 who reach at least partial response (PR), will receive weekly single-agent selinexor 60 mg (28 days/cycle) as "continuous therapy" until disease progression (PD) or unacceptable toxicity. After PD, patients will be followed up for survival. Patients in the R-GDP arm will be followed up for PD and survival. Patients who are ineligible for HSCT due to an active disease, or those who have primary refractory DLBCL, defined as no response or relapse within 6 months after ending first-line treatment, will be allowed to enroll in the study (up to 15% and 25%, respectively of all patients enrolled). The primary endpoint of the study is ORR according to the Lugano 2014 criteria. Secondary endpoints include PFS, OS, ORR-EoC, DOR and incidence and severity of adverse events. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Pinto: Takeda: Consultancy; MSD: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb-CELGENE: Honoraria. Yimer: Texas Oncology: Current Employment; Pharmacyclics: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; GSK: Speakers Bureau; Beigene: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Astrazeneca: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Speakers Bureau. Manda: Morphosys: Honoraria; Genmab: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Canales: Sanofi: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; iQone: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Eusa Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria. Jurczak: European Medicines Agency, Sandoz-Novartis, Janssen China R&D, BeiGene, Epizyme, Acerta, AstraZeneca: Consultancy; AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Celtrion, Celgene, Debbiopharm, Epizyme, Incyte, Janssen, Loxo Oncology, Merck, Mei Pharma, Morphosys, Novo Nordisk, Roche, Sandoz, Takeda, TG Therapeutics, Pharmacyclics, Affirmed, Gilead Sciences, Nordic Nanovecto: Research Funding; Jagiellonian University: Ended employment in the past 24 months; Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology: Current Employment; AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Janssen, Loxo Oncology, Sandoz, Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sureda: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Other: Support for attending meetings and/or travel; Bluebird: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Support for attending meetings and/or travel, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Support for attending meetings and/or travel, Speakers Bureau. Ma: Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Ended employment in the past 24 months. Li: Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ingalls: Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Arriola: Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Arazy: Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Shah: Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Shacham: Karyopharm: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Patents & Royalties: (8999996, 9079865, 9714226, PCT/US12/048319, and I574957) on hydrazide containing nuclear transport modulators and uses, and pending patents PCT/US12/048319, 499/2012, PI20102724, and 2012000928) . Kauffman: Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Nowakowski: Celgene, NanoString Technologies, MorphoSys: Research Funding; Celgene, MorphoSys, Genentech, Selvita, Debiopharm Group, Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

2016 Background: Among the primary aims of new therapies for glioblastoma (GBM) are the reduction of morbidity and restoration or preservation of quality of life (QoL). Selinexor (SEL) is a first-in class, oral, selective inhibitor of nuclear export which blocks exportin 1 (XPO1), forcing the nuclear retention and reactivation of tumor suppressor proteins, ultimately causing cell death in cancer cells. SEL is approved for the treatment of previously treated multiple myeloma and DLBCL. XPORT-GBM-029 (NCT04421378) is a phase 1 dose finding study followed by an open-label randomized phase 2, 3-arm trial to evaluate SEL in combination with standard therapies for newly diagnosed and recurrent GBM: Arm A (ndGBM, uMGMT) – radiation +/- SEL; Arm B (ndGBM, mMGMT) – radiation and temozolomide +/- SEL; Arm C (rGBM) – lomustine +/- SEL at first relapse. We look to identify sensitive, reliable, and clinically meaningful digital assessments of the functional status of ndGBM and rGBM patients via a patient-centric approach. Methods: XPORT-GBM-029 incorporates standard clinical and imaging evaluations of GBM progression with novel digital tools that objectively measure motor and cognitive function. The study is conducted at 50 sites globally with the aim of enrolling 350 patients with newly diagnosed and recurrent GBM. Following discussions with KOLs and patient advocacy partners at EndbrainCancer, we surveyed GBM patients and their caregivers to identify disease manifestations critical to patients’ QoL. The survey revealed four key areas impacting patients’ QoL that can be affected by GBM therapies and can be objectively monitored: cognitive function, lateralization, fatigue, and sleep. In this trial we use objective measurements to evaluate SEL’s effects on GBM patients’ QoL. Patients wear inertial sensors to measure their activity and sleep and complete a cognitive battery at baseline and before each MRI. Results: Associations between objective digital measures of activity, gait, fatigue, sleep, and cognition will be examined with respect to clinical assessments including physical examinations, modified Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (mRANO), Neurologic Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (NANO), Karnofsky Performance Score (KPS) and Patient Reported Outcome (PRO) QoL questionnaires. Descriptive summary statistics and plots are employed in exploratory data analysis, and other advanced data mining methods may also be considered. Conclusions: XPORT-GBM-029 trial is probably the first large, prospective, longitudinal study in GBM patients employing digital markers and may provide useful information regarding the utility of wearable and mobile devices for measuring functional outcomes in clinical trials. Clinical trial information: NCT04421378.

AbstractTriple‐class‐refractory multiple myeloma (MM) describes MM refractory to proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory agents, and anti‐CD38 monoclonal antibodies. In the Phase IIb STORM study (NCT02336815), oral selinexor plus low‐dose dexamethasone (Sel‐dex) demonstrated a 26.2% overall response rate in triple‐class‐refractory MM. Here, we compare overall survival (OS) of 122 patients with triple‐class‐refractory MM who received Sel‐dex in STORM Part 2 with that of 64 similar patients treated with other available therapies in a Flatiron Health Analytic Database (FHAD) cohort. OS from the date that the patients’ MM became triple‐class‐refractory was longer in STORM versus FHAD, with an unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.43 (P = .0002; adjusted HR 0.35 [P = .011]). In a subset analysis of highly resistant patients receiving further therapies after their MM first became at least triple‐class‐refractory (i.e., who received Sel‐dex in STORM,n = 64, and non‐Sel‐dex in FHAD,n = 36), the OS was significantly longer in STORM with an unadjusted HR of 0.52 (P = .0331; adjusted HR 0.33 [P = .041]). Within the limits of this analysis, the OS of patients with at least triple‐class‐refractory MM was significantly better with Sel‐dex versus available therapies, suggesting that Sel‐dex may be associated with a meaningful OS benefit in these patients.

Abstract Rationale Escalation of the Zevalin dose is limited by hematologic toxicity associated with marrow B-cells ± tumor cells. Rituxan treatment before Zevalin may reverse marrow infiltration with malignant and normal B-cells allowing an increase in the dosage of Zevalin with enhanced radiation delivery to lymphoma tumor sites. Since NHL is radiation sensitive, a substantial increase in radiation dose delivered should increase the ORR and CR rates. Design Low-grade follicular/transformed NHL patients receive 4 weekly dose of Rituxan (375mg/m2) before the corresponding Zevalin dose. Bilateral bone marrow biopsies/aspirates as well as biodistribution and dosimetry studies using 111In-2B8 were obtained before and after Rituxan. The trial was schedule to escalate the Zevalin dose (from 0.4 to 0.7 mCi/Kg). After completion of the 0.4 mCi/kg cohort an additional cohort of Rituxan sensitive patients using 0.3 mCi/kg was completed. Safety, pharmacokinetics, dosimetry and preliminary responses are presented. Results 5 pts were enrolled in the 0.4mCi/kg cohort and 6 pts in the 0.3 mCi/kg cohort. In the 10 Rituxan sensitive patients the plasma T ½ and the AUC of 111In-2B8 increased after the administration of Rituxan, with a reduction in the plasma clearance (T½ from 45 ± 4.5 hours to 54 ± 1.9 hours, AUC from 60 ± 10 hrs/μCi/ml to 85 ± 14 hrs/μCi/ml, and the clearance from 1.4 ± 0.3 ml/hrs/kg to 0.9 ± 0.2 ml/hrs/kg). Dosimetry showed no differences in the radiation-absorbed dose for major normal organs (whole body, liver, kidneys) except for the spleen in which a reduction was observed in 7 out of 10 patients. The radiation-absorbed dose to the marrow increased after Rituxan; from 3.6 rads/mCi to 4.28 rads/mCi. In the 0.4 mCi/kg cohort 3 out of 4 evaluable patients for response had a complete response, and 1 patient had progression documented at initial evaluation six weeks post-Zevalin (patient refractory to previous Rituxan). No non-hematological toxicity was observed. One patient had a grade 4 thrombocytopenia, 3 patients had grade 3 thrombocytopenia, and 4 patients had grade 4 WBC and ANC. All patients recovered within two weeks after the nadir. Two out of 6 patients treated in the 0.3 mCi/kg cohort had complete response by physical evaluation, and 4 had partial response; no early progressions were seen in this cohort. No non-hematological toxicity was observed. Only one patient had a grade 4 WBC and ANC, and 2 patients had a grade 3; 3 patients had grade 3 thrombocytopenia; all patients recovered. Conclusions The administration of high doses of Rituxan before Zevalin prolongs the circulation time of the radiolabeled antibody and increases the bone marrow exposure to the radioisotope. Additionally, the increased amount of the radiolabeled antibody available after Rituxan therapy with the prolonged circulation time may explain the unusual high complete response rate observed in this small number of patients despite extensive chemotherapy failures. Although this is very provocative data, the number of patients is very limited to generate a strong conclusion. The trial continues at this time.

8014 Background: TCR-MM is defined as being refractory to immunomodulatory agents, proteasome inhibitors, and anti-CD38 mAbs, representing an urgent unmet medical need with a median OS of 3-5 months( Pick M et al, Eur J Haem 2018; Gandhi U et al, ASH 2018). Sd has shown a 26.2% overall response rate (ORR) in 122 patients (pts) with TCR-MM in the Phase 2b STORM study ( Chari A et al, ASH 2018). Here, we evaluate the OS of pts in the STORM study with Sd and in pts with bortezomib, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, and daratumumab (“penta”)-exposed, TCR-MM from an observational cohort not receiving Sd. Methods: Data were drawn from STORM and a retrospective cohort from the nationally representative Flatiron Health Analytic Database (FHAD). All pts from both sources had penta-exposed TCR-MM. In order to align study populations, OS was evaluated in pts in STORM whose first therapy after their MM reached TCR status was Sd and in pts in the FHAD who received ≥1 therapy after their MM reached TCR status. The index date for this evaluation was the start date of treatment after their MM reached TCR status. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was performed to assess the survival impact of Sd. In STORM, ORR was assessed by an Independent Review Committee based on IMWG criteria. Results: In the FHAD, 69 pts with TCR-MM were identified. Characteristics of the two groups of pts were similar, except that pts in STORM were more heavily pretreated, had a higher frequency of high-risk MM, a longer time since initial diagnosis of MM, and higher baseline hemoglobin and platelet values. Among the 122 pts in STORM, 64 received Sd as their first therapy after their MM became TCR, and ORR was 32.8%. Among the 69 pts from FHAD, 37 received ≥1 therapy after their MM became TCR. Median OS (N = 64) was 10.4 months for pts receiving Sd in STORM and 5.2 months (N = 37) for pts not receiving Sd in FHAD (HR = 0.49, p = 0.0241). Conclusions: The prognosis of TCR-MM in the real-world population appears very poor. Within the limits of this analysis, median OS of pts receiving Sd as their first therapy after their MM becomes TCR is significantly better than those not receiving Sd, suggesting that Sd may be associated with an OS benefit in pts with TCR-MM. Clinical trial information: NCT02336815.

8037 Background: Advances in the treatment of MM have greatly improved clinical outcomes for patients (pts). SPM occurrence has been observed in early and late stage MM as well as with increasing age. US SEER Cancer Registry reports a background incidence rate of SPM 2.1/100 person-yrs (PY) among persons ≥ 65 yrs of age. However, incidence of SPM in MM pts and the relationship to therapy still warrants further exploration. Methods: Connect MM is a US-based observational registry designed to characterize pts with newly diagnosed MM from 266 US sites. Initiated in Sep 2009, patient data were collected at baseline and each subsequent quarter with a standardized form. On Dec 14, 2011, Connect MM reached full enrollment at 1,500 pts. Results: As of Jan 13, 2012, preliminary retrospective SPM data is available for 1015 pts. Median age was 67 yrs, 56.8% male, and median follow-up was 10.6 mo (0.03-24.9 mo). 12 pts (7 male) with median age of 68.5 yrs developed SPM. Median time to SPM was 8.5 mo (0.8-17.7 mo) after treatment initiation. 11 invasive SPM were observed - 4 hematological (heme): 1 AML, 1 MDS, 1 CMML and 1 DLBCL, and 7 solid: 2 melanoma skin, 1 bronchus, 1 breast, 1 prostate, 1 tonsil, and 1 gastric carcinoid. Also, 1 pt had non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC), and 1 pt with invasive skin cancer also had NMSC. Of the 4 pts developing heme SPM, 3 had bortezomib (BORT), 1 had thalidomide (THAL), 1 had lenalidomide (LEN), 2 had melphalan (MEL), and all 4 pts had steroids. Of the 7 pts who developed solid tumor SPM, 5 had BORT, 5 had LEN, 2 had doxorubicin, 1 had MEL, 5 had steroids, 1 had irradiation, and 1 had not received MM treatment. 2 pts with prior history of invasive malignancy developed solid tumor SPM (1 pt also developed NMSC).1 pt who received irradiation developed NMSC. Early overall incidence of invasive SPM was 1.21/100 PY (95% CI 0.60, 2.16) for all pts and 1.20/100 PY (95% CI 0.44,2.62) for pts ≥ 65 yrs of age. Conclusions: This preliminary analysis shows that SPM occurred at an expected rate in this disease specific registry of patients with NDMM and appeared to occur irrespective of MM treatment administered. Incidence rates of SPM may increase over time as patients receive transplantation and alkylators. Prospective observation will continue.

e18556 Background: Studies in the United States (US) have identified variation in incidence and survival of multiple myeloma (MM) patients of different races, and noted that MM is the most common hematologic cancer among African Americans. This analysis evaluated whether health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of patients in the US varies by race as they initiate treatment having been newly diagnosed with active, symptomatic MM. Methods: Data were collected in Connect MM, a prospective US observational registry begun in September 2009. Data on patient demographics and clinical characteristics were provided by clinicians. HRQOL was reported by patients at enrollment within 2 months of diagnosis. Patients completed the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), EQ-5D, and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Multiple Myeloma (FACT-MM). Mean reported scores for BPI, EQ-5D and FACT-MM were analyzed by patient race. Statistical significance was ascertained by ANOVA using SAS 9.1. Results: Baseline HRQOL data were reported by 1144 patients (enrolled in 228 centers) of whom 82% were White, 13% Black, and 6% Other race. The cohorts did not differ statistically by ECOG status or by multiple myeloma stage (assessed by either the International Staging System or the Durie and Salmon system). Compared to non-Blacks, Black patients reported less anxiety/depression on the EQ-5D (p=0.030) and better emotional well-being on the FACT-MM (p=0.003). No other statistically significant differences were noted between cohorts on the BPI, other EQ-5D domains (mobility, self care, usual activities, pain/discomfort), or other FACT-MM domains (physical, social/family, functional, and MM-specific considerations). Conclusions: Initial results from the Connect MM Registry indicate that baseline HRQOL prior to initiation of treatment may vary by patient race with respect to emotional well-being, and specifically anxiety/depression. These results serve as a baseline reference for future analyses. As patients in the Connect MM Registry proceed through therapy, analyses should be conducted of patients by race, among other characteristics and factors, to determine whether it may be associated with subsequent clinical outcomes and HRQOL over time.