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.
Introducing
Now you can personalise
your Multiple Myeloma Hub experience!
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View content recommended for you
Find out moreThe 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.
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.
Bookmark this article
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
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 |
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 |
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
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 |
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
Your opinion matters
Subscribe to get the best content related to multiple myeloma delivered to your inbox