Selinexor in advanced, metastatic dedifferentiated liposarcoma: A multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

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 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 o

Real-world outcomes of patients with locally advanced or metastatic epithelioid sarcoma

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available on the real-world effectiveness and safety of systemic therapies for advanced (surgically unresectable and/or metastatic) epithelioid sarcoma (ES). METHODS: A retrospective medical records review was conducted in patients with advanced ES who were initiating first-line or ≥2 lines of systemic therapy (2000-2017) at 5 US cancer centers. The real-world overall response rate (rwORR), the duration of response (rwDOR), the disease control rate (rwDCR) (defined as stable disease for ≥32 weeks or any duration of response), and progression-free survival (rwPFS) were assessed by radiology reports. Overall survival (OS), rwDOR, and rwPFS were estimated from the time therapy was initiated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Serious adverse events were assessed. RESULTS: Of 74 patients (median age at diagnosis, 33 years; range, 10.6-76.3 years), 72% were male, and 85% had metastatic disease. The median number of lines of therapy was 2 (range, 1-7 lines of therapy), and 46 patients (62%) received ≥2 lines of systemic therapy. First-line regimens were usually anthracycline-based (54%) or gemcitabine-based (24%). For patients receiving first-line systemic therapy, the rwORR was 15%, the rwDCR was 20%, the median rwDOR was 3.3 months (95% CI, 2.1-5.2 months), the median rwPFS was 2.5 months (95% CI, 1.7, 6.9 months), and the median OS was 15.2 months (95% CI, 11.4-21.7 months). For those who received ≥2 lines of systemic therapy, the rwORR was 9%, the rwDCR was 20%, the median rwDOR was 4.5 months (95% CI, 0.7-5.6 months), and the median rwPFS was 6.0 months (95% CI, 3.2-7.4 months). Over one-half of patients (51.4%) experienced an adverse event, most frequently febrile neutropenia (14%), pain (10%), anemia, dyspnea, fever, thrombocytopenia, or transaminitis (5% each). CONCLUSIONS: Systemic therapies demonstrate limited efficacy in patients with advanced ES and have associated toxicities

Health-related quality of life and pain with selinexor in patients with advanced dedifferentiated liposarcoma

[Objective] Compare health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of selinexor versus placebo in patients with dedifferentiated liposarcoma.[Materials & methods] HRQoL was assessed at baseline and day 1 of each cycle using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer 30-item core quality of life questionnaire. Results were reported from baseline to day 169 (where exposure to treatment was maximized while maintaining adequate sample size).[Results] Pain scores worsened for placebo versus selinexor across all postbaseline visits, although differences in HRQoL at some visits were not significant. Other domains did not exhibit significant differences between arms; however, scores in both arms deteriorated over time.[Conclusion] Patients treated with selinexor reported lower rates and slower worsening of pain compared with patients who received placebo.This study was funded by Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc. M Gounder: reports an institutional research grant from Karyopharm, personal fees from Karyopharm, Epizyme, Springworks, Daiichi, Bayer, Amgen, Tracon, Flatiron, Medscape, Physicians Education Resource, Guidepoint, GLG and UpToDate; and grants from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health (P30CA008748) – core grant (CCSG shared resources and core facility). ARA Razak: consulting/Ad board: Merck & Adaptimmune Research support: Karyopharm Therapeutics, Deciphera, Blueprint Medicines, Pfizer, Adaptimmune, Merck, Roche/Genentech, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Medimmune, Amgen, GSK, AbbVie, Iterion Therapeutics. AM Gilligan: employee of Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc. H Leong: employee of Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc. X Ma: employee of Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc. N Somaiah: consultant for Deciphera, Blueprint, Bayer Research Support from Ascentage, Astra-Zeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Deciphera, Eli Lilly, Karyopharm and GSK. SP Chawla: consultant for Amgen, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Threshold Pharmaceuticals, CytRx Corporation, Ignyta, Immune Design, TRACON Pharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics, SARC: Sarcoma Alliance for Research though Collaboration, Janssen, Advenchen Laboratories, Bayer, NKMax, InhibRx. Grants or contracts from Amgen, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Threshold Pharmaceuticals, CytRx Corporation, Ignyta, Immune Design, TRACON Pharma, Karyopharm Therapeutics, SARC: Sarcoma Alliance for Research though Collaboration, Janssen, Advenchen Laboratories, Bayer, InhibRx, NKMax. G Grignani: consultant for Eli Lilly, Novartis, Glaxo, Pharmamar, EISAI, Bayer, Merck. SM Schuetze: consultant – NanoCarrier, UpToDate. Research funding to institution – Adaptimmune, Amgen, Blueprint, Glaxo-SmithKline, Karyopharm. B Vincenzi: Consultant for Pharmamar Eisai, Lilly, Abbott, Novartis, Accord AJ Wagner: consultant for Daiichi-Sankyo, Deciphera, Eli Lilly, Epizyme, NovoCarrier, Mundipharma, and Research Support to My Institution from Aadi Bioscience, Daiichi-Sankyo, Deciphera, Eli Lilly, Karyopharm and Plexxikon. RL Jones: consultant for Adaptimmune, Athenex, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Blueprint, Clinigen, Eisai, Epizyme, Daichii, Deciphera, Immunedesign, Lilly, Merck, Pharmamar, Springworks, Tracon, Upto Date. J Shah: employee of Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc. S Shacham: employee of Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc. M Kauffman: employee of Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc. RF Riedel: ownership - Limbguard, LLC (Spouse); Institutional Clinical Research Support - AADi, AROG, Blueprint, Daiichi-Sankyo, Deciphera, Glaxo-SmithKline, Karyopharm, Ignyta, Immune Design, NanoCarrier, Oncternal, Philogen, Plexxikon, Roche, Springworks, Tracon; Consultant/Advisor - Bayer, Blueprint, Daiichi-Sankyo, Deciphera, Ignyta, NanoCarrier. S Attia: reports research funding from Desmoid Tumor Research Foundation and research funding to their institution from: AB Science, TRACON Pharma, Bayer, Novartis, Lilly, Immune Design, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Epizyme, Blueprint Medicines, Genmab, CBA Pharma, Merck, Philogen, Gradalis, Deciphera, Takeda, Incyte, Springworks, Adaptimmune, Advenchen Laboratories, Bavarian Nordic, BTG, PTC Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, FORMA Therapeutics. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.Peer reviewe

Systemic treatments in MDM2 positive intimal sarcoma: A multicentre experience with anthracycline, gemcitabine, and pazopanib within the World Sarcoma Network

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/152621/1/cncr32508_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/152621/2/cncr32508.pd

The management of desmoid tumours: A joint global consensus-based guideline approach for adult and paediatric patients

Abstract Desmoid tumor (DT; other synonymously used terms: Desmoid-type fibromatosis, aggressive fibromatosis) is a rare and locally aggressive monoclonal, fibroblastic proliferation characterised by a variable and often unpredictable clinical course. Previously surgery was the standard primary treatment modality; however, in recent years a paradigm shift towards a more conservative management has been introduced and an effort to harmonise the strategy amongst clinicians has been made. We present herein an evidence-based, joint global consensus guideline approach to the management of this disease focussing on: molecular genetics, indications for an active treatment, and available systemic therapeutic options. This paper follows a one-day consensus meeting held in Milan, Italy, in June 2018 under the auspices of the European Reference Network for rare solid adult cancers, EURACAN, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group (STBSG) as well as Sarcoma Patients EuroNet (SPAEN) and The Desmoid tumour Research Foundation (DTRF). The meeting brought together over 50 adult and pediatric sarcoma experts from different disciplines, patients and patient advocates from Europe, North America and Japan

Selinexor in Advanced, Metastatic Dedifferentiated Liposarcoma: A Multinational, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

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: ). 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. (C) 2022 by American Society of Clinical Oncolog

Pharmacovigilance and reporting oversight in US FDA fast-track process: bisphosphonates and osteonecrosis of the jaw

More than half of all serious adverse reactions are identified 7 or more years after a drug receives approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In 2002, 9 months after the intravenous bisphosphonate zoledronic acid received regulatory approval for marketing, the FDA received reports of nine patients with cancer, who were treated with zoledronic acid, who unexpectedly developed osteonecrosis of the jaw. During the next 2 years, three oral surgeons described 104 patients with cancer with osteonecrosis of the jaw in the medical literature and identified intravenous bisphosphonate therapy as being common to the care of these patients. In subspecialty medical, radiology, and dental journals, case reports and case series described clinical features of osteonecrosis of the jaw in patients with cancer who were treated with bisphosphonates. Manufacturer-sponsored epidemiological studies reported the first estimates of the incidence of this toxic effect, ranging from 0·1% to 1·8%. By contrast, independent epidemiological efforts from clinicians and the International Myeloma Foundation reported incidence estimates between 5% and 10%. Between 2003 and 2005, warnings about the risks of bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis were disseminated by national regulatory agencies, the manufacturers of bisphosphonates, and the International Myeloma Foundation. From 2006, independent clinical recommendations for diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of this toxic effect have been disseminated by manufacturers, national regulatory authorities, the International Myeloma Foundation, and medical specialty organisations. Furthermore, independent efforts by pharmaceutical manufacturers, dental and medical professionals, a non-profit organisation (the International Myeloma Foundation), patients, and regulatory authorities has led to the rapid identification and dissemination of safety information for this serious adverse reaction. Better coordination of safety-related pharmacovigilance initiatives is now needed. © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved