All content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals only. By acknowledging this message and accessing the information on this website you are confirming that you are a Healthcare Professional. If you are a patient or carer, please visit the International Myeloma Foundation or HealthTree for Multiple Myeloma.

The Multiple Myeloma Hub uses cookies on this website. They help us give you the best online experience. By continuing to use our website without changing your cookie settings, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our updated Cookie Policy

Join our

Treating classical Hodgkin lymphoma: Spotlight on targeted therapies

with Gilles Salles, Paul Bröckelmann, and Ann S. LaCasce

Saturday, November 2, 2024
8:50-9:50 CET

Register now

This independent educational activity is sponsored by Takeda. All content is developed independently by the faculty. Funders are allowed no direct influence on the content of this activity.

  TRANSLATE

The Multiple Myeloma Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the Multiple Myeloma Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The Multiple Myeloma Hub and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.

Steering CommitteeAbout UsNewsletterContact
LOADING
You're logged in! Click here any time to manage your account or log out.
LOADING
You're logged in! Click here any time to manage your account or log out.

The Multiple Myeloma Hub is an independent medical education platform, sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi. The levels of sponsorship listed are reflective of the amount of funding given. Digital educational resources delivered on the Multiple Myeloma Hub are supported by an educational grant from Janssen Biotech, Inc. View funders.

2020-07-17T15:57:03.000Z

Selinexor combined with bortezomib + dexamethasone: the BOSTON trial

Jul 17, 2020
Share:

The proteasome inhibitor, bortezomib, has demonstrated clinical efficacy in combination regimens for MM. However, prolonged treatment with bortezomib is associated with high rates of peripheral neuropathy (PN). The phase III BOSTON trial (NCT03110562) aimed to compare the efficacy of selinexor + bortezomib + dexamethasone (SVd) with bortezomib + dexamethasone (Vd) and to determine if SVd reduces the rate of PN compared with Vd alone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM).

At this year’s virtual ASCO Annual Meeting, Meletios A. Dimopoulos outlined the initial results, summarized below.1

Study design

  • Primary endpoint: progression-free survival (PFS)
  • Secondary endpoints: overall response rate (ORR), ≥ very good partial response (VGPR), Grade ≥ 2 PN
  • Adult patients with progressive measurable MM (N = 402) with 1–3 lines of prior therapy underwent 1:1 randomization to receive
    • SVd (n = 195) or
    • Vd (n = 207)
  • Treatment regimens are presented in Table 1

Table 1. Dosing schedules of SVD vs Vd1

SVd, selinexor + bortezomib + dexamethasone; Vd, bortezomib + dexamethasone

*35-day cycles

Vd biweekly 21-day cycles (Cycles 1–8); Vd weekly 35-day cycles (Cycles ≥ 9)

 

Regimen

SVd*

Vd

Selinexor, 100 mg orally

 

Days 1, 8, 15, 22, 29

Dexamethasone, 20 mg orally

Days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, 23, 29, 30

Cycles 1–8: Days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12

Cycles ≥ 9: Days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, 23, 29, 30

Bortezomib, 1.3 mg/m2 SC

 

Days 1, 8, 15, 22

Cycles 1–8: Days 1, 4, 8, 11

Cycles ≥ 9: Days 1, 8, 15, 22

Results

  • Patient characteristics are presented in Table 2

Table 2. Baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in the BOSTON study1

Characteristic

SVd (n = 195)

Vd (n = 207)

PR, partial response; SVd, selinexor + bortezomib + dexamethasone; Vd, bortezomib + dexamethasone

* del (17p), t(14;16), t(14;14) or amp 1q21

Patients previously exposed to proteasome inhibitors should have achieved at least a PR

Median age, years (range)

66 (40–87)

67 (38–90)

Male, %

59

56

Median time from diagnosis, years (range)

3.8 (0.4–23)

3.6 (0.4–22)

High-risk cytogenetics*, %

50

46

Creatinine clearance 30–60 mL/min, %

27

29

Number of prior lines of therapy, %

1

2

3

 

51

33

16

 

48

31

21

Prior treatment, %

 

 

Bortezomib

68.7

70.0

Carfilzomib

10.3

10.1

Lenalidomide

39.5

37.2

Daratumumab

5.6

2.9

Efficacy

  • When compared to Vd, SVd was associated with significantly improved
    • response rates in the overall population and by patient subgroup and PFS (Table 3)
    • depth of response (Figure 1; ≥ VGPR, p = 0.0082)
  • When patients in the control arm (Vd) presented a confirmed progressive disease, they were offered to cross over to a selinexor-based treatment
  • Although SVd was associated with lower overall PN rates vs Vd (p = 0.001), PN remained the most common AE resulting in treatment discontinuation:
    • SVd: 4.6%
    • Vd: 7.4%

Table 3. Patient outcomes to SVd vs Vd1

HR, hazard ratio; PFS, progression-free survival; SVd, selinexor + bortezomib + dexamethasone; Vd, bortezomib + dexamethasone

* Data cutoff: February 18, 2020.

Patient outcome*

SVd (n = 195)

Vd (n = 207)

p value

Median follow-up, months

13.2

16.5

PFS, months

13.93

9.46

HR 0.70, 0.0066

ORR, %

76.4

62.3

0.0012

Aged ≥ 65 years

76.1

64.4

0.0243

High-risk cytogenetics

77.3

55.8

0.0008

Creatinine clearance 30 – 60 mL/min

79.2

56.7

0.0055

1 prior line of therapy

80.8

65.7

0.0082

Prior bortezomib treatment

77.6

59.3

0.0005

Prior lenalidomide treatment

67.5

53.2

0.0354

Median duration of response, months

20.3

12.9

 Figure 1. ORRs to SVd vs Vd in the overall population1

CR, complete response; ORR, overall response rate; PR, partial response; sCR, stringent complete response; SVd, selinexor + bortezomib + dexamethasone; Vd, bortezomib + dexamethasone; VGPR, very good partial response

Safety

  • Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were manageable and reversible
  • To date, 17% and 11% of patients discontinued SVd and Vd, respectively, due to AEs or toxicities
  • Common Grade 3–4 TRAEs are outlined in Table 4

Table 4. Common Grade 3–4 TRAEs observed in > 5% of patients receiving SVd vs Vd1

TRAE, treatment-related adverse event; SVd, selinexor + bortezomib + dexamethasone; Vd, bortezomib + dexamethasone

Grade 3–4 TRAEs

SVd (n = 195)

Vd (n = 207)

Thrombocytopenia

39.5

17.2

Anemia

15.9

9.8

Fatigue

13.3

1.0

Neutropenia

8.7

3.4

Cataract

8.7

1.5

Asthenia

8.2

4.4

Nausea

7.7

0

Diarrhea

6.2

0.5

Conclusions

QW SVd demonstrated significantly superior efficacy over BIW Vd, reducing the risk of progression or death by 30%, and standing as a novel, IMiD-free triplet therapy for patients with RRMM. QW administration of SVd has the potential to reduce hospital visits by up to 40% while also reducing levels of bortezomib-associated PN.1,2

  1. Dimopoulos MA, Delimpasi S, Simonova M, et al. Weekly selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (SVd) versus twice weekly bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM) after one to three prior therapies: Initial results of the phase III BOSTON study. Oral abstract #8501. ASCO; May 29, 2020; Virtual.
  2. Grosicki S, Simonova M, Spicka I, et al. Once-per-week selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone versus twice-per-week bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with multiple myeloma (BOSTON): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2020; 396(10262):1563-1573. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32292-3

Your opinion matters

HCPs, what is your preferred format for educational content on the Multiple Myeloma Hub?
47 votes - 9 days left ...

Newsletter

Subscribe to get the best content related to multiple myeloma delivered to your inbox