A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Lowering the Selinexor Dose within the Pomalidomide and Dexamethasone Combination Regimen Elicits Fewer Side Effects While Comparable Efficacy Against Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background: As a novel oral Exportin 1 (XPO1) inhibitor, selinexor at 80 or 100 mg has demonstrated efficacy in treating relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), nonetheless, this dosage has shown poor tolerability.

Objective: To explore the optimal dosage of selinexor, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of 60 vs 40 mg selinexor, combine with regimen comprising pomalidomide and dexamethasone in RRMM.

Design: 21 patients with RRMM were enrolled to receive selinexor (60 or 40 mg once weekly), together with pomalidomide (4 mg/day on days 1-21) and dexamethasone (40 mg once weekly); the SPD-60 group (6 patients) vs SPD-40 group (15 patients).

Methods: The clinical response and efficacy of the two groups were continuously followed up, and statistical analysis was carried out to screen out the dose group with fewer side effects and better efficacy. The primary endpoint was (objective response rates) ORR. The secondary endpoints included treatment safety and tolerability, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

Results: The ORR of the SPD-60 and SPD-40 groups were 33.3% and 46.7% respectively (=0.773). With a median follow-up of 20.9 months, the median PFS was 6.2 months and the median OS was not achieved across all treated patients. The median PFS for SPD-60 group was 4.3 months, while for SPD-40 was 8.0 months (=0.618). The 1-year OS rate were 66.7% for SPD-60 group and 85.1% for the SPD-40 group (=0.308). The most common hematological adverse events were neutropenia (SPD-60 group 50% vs SPD-40 group 53.3%) and thrombocytopenia (50% vs 46.7%). Fatigue (83.3% vs 40%), infection (50% vs 53.3%), and nausea (83.3% vs 40%) were the most common non-hematologic adverse effects.

Conclusion: The SPD-40 regimen may be more clinically applicable than SPD-60, as it elicited fewer adverse effects while demonstrating equivalent efficacy.

Trial Registration: : NCT04941937.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12151071PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OTT.S516486DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

spd-60 group
16
spd-40 group
12
pomalidomide dexamethasone
8
fewer side
8
side effects
8
relapsed/refractory multiple
8
multiple myeloma
8
group
8
months median
8
median pfs
8

Similar Publications