Forscher, Charles

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.

PURPOSE: We have completed a phase I study, followed by three phase I/II studies, in patients with metastatic melanoma, renal cell carcinoma (RCC), and sarcoma in order to evaluate the safety, toxicity, and antitumor activity of Leuvectin (Vical Inc, San Diego, CA), a gene transfer product containing a plasmid encoding human interleukin (IL)-2 formulated with the cationic lipid 1,2-dimyristyloxypropyl-3-dimethyl-hydroxyethyl ammonium bromide/dioleyl-phosphatidyl-ethanolamine (DMRIE/DOPE) and administered intratumorally. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-four patients were treated in the phase I study. Leuvectin doses were 10 μg, 30 μg, or 300 μg weekly for 6 weeks. In three subsequent phase I/II studies, a total of 52 patients (18 with melanoma, 17 with RCC, and 17 with sarcoma) were treated with further escalating doses of Leuvectin: 300 μg twice a week for 3 weeks, 750 μg weekly for 6 weeks, and 1,500 μg weekly for 6 weeks. RESULTS: There were no drug-related grade 4 toxicities and only one grade 3 toxicity, but the majority ofpatients experienced mild constitutional symptoms after treatment. In the phase I/II studies, 45 patients were assessable for response (14 with RCC, 16 with melanoma, and 15 with sarcoma). Two patients with RCC and one with melanoma have achieved partial responses lasting from 16 to 19 months and continuing. In addition, two RCC, three melanoma, and six sarcoma patients had stable disease lasting from 3 to 18 months and continuing. The plasmid was detected by polymerase chain reaction assay in the posttreatment samples of 29 of 46 evaluated patients. Immunohistochemistry studies on serial biopsy specimens showed increased IL-2 expression and CD8+ infiltration after treatment in the tumor samples of several patients (12 and 16, respectively). CONCLUSION: Direct intratumoral injection of Leuvectin is a safe and possibly effective immunotherapeutic approach in the treatment of certain tumor types.