Sylvain Choquet

BACKGROUND: Selinexor, a selective inhibitor of nuclear export compound that blocks exportin 1 (XPO1) and forces nuclear accumulation and activation of tumor suppressor proteins, inhibits nuclear factor κB, and reduces oncoprotein messenger RNA translation, is a potential novel treatment for myeloma that is refractory to current therapeutic options. METHODS: We administered oral selinexor (80 mg) plus dexamethasone (20 mg) twice weekly to patients with myeloma who had previous exposure to bortezomib, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, daratumumab, and an alkylating agent and had disease refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor, one immunomodulatory agent, and daratumumab (triple-class refractory). The primary end point was overall response, defined as a partial response or better, with response assessed by an independent review committee. Clinical benefit, defined as a minimal response or better, was a secondary end point. RESULTS: A total of 122 patients in the United States and Europe were included in the modified intention-to-treat population (primary analysis), and 123 were included in the safety population. The median age was 65 years, and the median number of previous regimens was 7; a total of 53% of the patients had high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities. A partial response or better was observed in 26% of patients (95% confidence interval, 19 to 35), including two stringent complete responses; 39% of patients had a minimal response or better. The median duration of response was 4.4 months, median progression-free survival was 3.7 months, and median overall survival was 8.6 months. Fatigue, nausea, and decreased appetite were common and were typically grade 1 or 2 (grade 3 events were noted in up to 25% of patients, and no grade 4 events were reported). Thrombocytopenia occurred in 73% of the patients (grade 3 in 25% and grade 4 in 33%). Thrombocytopenia led to bleeding events of grade 3 or higher in 6 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Selinexor-dexamethasone resulted in objective treatment responses in patients with myeloma refractory to currently available therapies. (Funded by Karyopharm Therapeutics; STORM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02336815.).

B-cell posttransplantation lymphoproliferative disorder (B-PTLD) is a rare but severe complication of transplantation, with no consensus on best treatment practice. This prospective trial, the first to test a treatment for PTLD, was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rituximab in patients with B-PTLD after solid organ transplantation (SOT). Forty-six patients were included and 43 patients were analyzed. Patients were eligible if they had untreated B-PTLD that was not responding to tapering of immunosuppression. Treatment consisted of 4 weekly injections of rituximab at 375 mg/m2. At day (d) 80, 37 (86%) patients were alive, and the response rate was 44.2%, including 12 complete response/unconfirmed complete response (CR/CRu). The only factor predictive of a response at d80 was a normal lactate dehydrogenase level (P = .007, odds ratio [OR] = 6.9). At d360, responses were maintained in 68% of patients, and 56% of patients were alive. The overall survival rate at 1 year was 67%. We conclude that rituximab is effective and safe in PTLD, with stable responses at 1 year. The response rate and overall survival might be improved by combining rituximab with other treatments.

Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) have both demonstrated impressive clinical activity in relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL). In this study, we analyzed the outcome of 809 patients with R/R DLBCL after two or more previous lines of treatment who had a commercial chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells order for axi-cel or tisa-cel and were registered in the retrospective French DESCAR-T registry study ( NCT04328298 ). After 1:1 propensity score matching (n = 418), the best overall response rate/complete response rate (ORR/CRR) was 80%/60% versus 66%/42% for patients treated with axi-cel compared to tisa-cel, respectively (P < 0.001 for both ORR and CRR comparisons). After a median follow-up of 11.7 months, the 1-year progression-free survival was 46.6% for axi-cel and 33.2% for tisa-cel (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.61; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.46-0.79; P = 0.0003). Overall survival (OS) was also significantly improved after axi-cel infusion compared to after tisa-cel infusion (1-year OS 63.5% versus 48.8%; HR = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.45-0.88; P = 0.0072). Similar findings were observed using the inverse probability of treatment weighting statistical approach. Grade 1-2 cytokine release syndrome was significantly more frequent with axi-cel than with tisa-cel, but no significant difference was observed for grade ≥3. Regarding immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), both grade 1-2 and grade ≥3 ICANS were significantly more frequent with axi-cel than with tisa-cel. In conclusion, our matched comparison study supports a higher efficacy and also a higher toxicity of axi-cel compared to tisa-cel in the third or more treatment line for R/R DLBCL.