Effect of prior treatments on selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in previously treated multiple myeloma

Therapeutic regimens for previously treated multiple myeloma (MM) may not provide prolonged disease control and are often complicated by significant adverse events, including peripheral neuropathy. In patients with previously treated MM in the Phase 3 BOSTON study, once weekly selinexor, once weekly bortezomib, and 40 mg dexamethasone (XVd) demonstrated a significantly longer median progression-free survival (PFS), higher response rates, deeper responses, a trend to improved survival, and reduced incidence and severity of bortezomib-induced peripheral neuropathy when compared with standard twice weekly bortezomib and 80 mg dexamethasone (Vd). The pre-specified analyses described here evaluated the influence of the number of prior lines of therapy, prior treatment with lenalidomide, prior proteasome inhibitor (PI) therapy, prior immunomodulatory drug therapy, and prior autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) on the efficacy and safety of XVd compared with Vd. In this 1:1 randomized study, enrolled patients were assigned to receive once weekly oral selinexor (100 mg) with once weekly subcutaneous bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2) and 40 mg per week dexamethasone (XVd) versus standard twice weekly bortezomib and 80 mg per week dexamethasone (Vd). XVd significantly improved PFS, overall response rate, time-to-next-treatment, and showed reduced all grade and grade ≥ 2 peripheral neuropathy compared with Vd regardless of prior treatments, but the benefits of XVd over Vd were more pronounced in patients treated earlier in their disease course who had either received only one prior therapy, had never been treated with a PI, or had prior ASCT. Treatment with XVd improved outcomes as compared to Vd regardless of prior therapies as well as manageable and generally reversible adverse events. XVd was associated with clinical benefit and reduced peripheral neuropathy compared to standard Vd in previously treated MM. These results suggest that the once weekly XVd regimen may be optimally administered to patients earlier in their course of disease, as their first bortezomib-containing regimen, and in those relapsing after ASCT. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03110562). Registered 12 April 2017. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03110562

Prevalence of bisphosphonate associated osteonecrosis of the jaws in multiple myeloma patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis of the jaws (BP-ONJ) is an adverse effect of bisphosphonate treatment with varying reported incidence rates.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In two neighboring German cities, prevalence and additional factors of the development of BP-ONJ in multiple myeloma patients with bisphosphonates therapy were recorded using a retrospective (RS) and cross-sectional study (CSS) design. For the RS, all patients treated from Jan. 2000 - Feb. 2006 were contacted by letter. In the CSS, all patients treated from Oct. 2006 - Mar. 2008 had a physical and dental examination. Additionally, a literature review was conducted to evaluate all articles reporting on BP-ONJ prevalence. PubMed search terms were: bisphosphonat, diphosphonate, osteonecrosis, prevalence and incidence.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In the RS, data from 81 of 161 patients could be obtained; four patients (4.9%) developed BP-ONJ. In the CSS, 16 of 78 patients (20.5%) developed BP-ONJ. All patients with BP-ONJ had received zoledronate; 12 of these had had additional bisphosphonates. All except one had an additional trigger factor (tooth extraction [n = 14], dental surgical procedure [n = 2], sharp mylohyoid ridge [n = 3]).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The prevalence of BP-ONJ may have been underestimated to date. The oral examination of all patients in this CSS might explain the higher prevalence, since even early asymptomatic stages of BP-ONJ and previously unnoticed symptomatic BP-ONJ were recorded. Since nearly all patients with BP-ONJ had an additional trigger factor, oral hygiene and dental care might help to reduce BP-ONJ incidence.</p

Histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors in recent clinical trials for cancer therapy

Heritable changes in gene expression that are not based upon alterations in the DNA sequence are defined as epigenetics. The most common mechanisms of epigenetic regulation are the methylation of CpG islands within the DNA and the modification of amino acids in the N-terminal histone tails. In the last years, it became evident that the onset of cancer and its progression may not occur only due to genetic mutations but also because of changes in the patterns of epigenetic modifications. In contrast to genetic mutations, which are almost impossible to reverse, epigenetic changes are potentially reversible. This implies that they are amenable to pharmacological interventions. Therefore, a lot of work in recent years has focussed on the development of small molecule enzyme inhibitors like DNA-methyltransferase inhibitors or inhibitors of histone-modifying enzymes. These may reverse misregulated epigenetic states and be implemented in the treatment of cancer or other diseases, e.g., neurological disorders. Today, several epigenetic drugs are already approved by the FDA and the EMEA for cancer treatment and around ten histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors are in clinical development. This review will give an update on recent clinical trials of the HDAC inhibitors used systemically that were reported in 2009 and 2010 and will present an overview of different biomarkers to monitor the biological effects