Background Selinexor with dexamethasone has demonstrated activity in patients with heavily pretreated multiple myeloma (MM). In a phase 1b/2 study, the combination of oral selinexor with the proteasome inhibitor (PI) bortezomib, and dexamethasone (SVd) induced high response rates with low rates of peripheral neuropathy, the main dose-limiting toxicity of bortezomib. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the clinical benefit of weekly SVd versus standard bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) in patients with previously treated MM.Methods This phase 3, randomised, open label trial was conducted at 123 sites in 21 countries.Patients who were previously treated with one to three lines of therapy, including PIs were randomised (1:1) to selinexor (100 mg once-weekly) plus bortezomib (1•3 mg/m 2 once-weekly) and dexamethasone (20 mg twice-weekly) [SVd] or bortezomib (1•3 mg/m 2 twice-weekly) and dexamethasone (20 mg 4 times per week) [Vd]. Randomisation was done using interactive response technology and stratified by previous PI therapy, lines of treatment, and MM stage. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population.Patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included in the safety population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03110562.

Laparoscopic repair of ventral incisional hernia is technically feasible and reliable for large hernia defects, even in obese patients. This approach should be reserved for patients with no history of previous hernia repair in order to avoid the risk of intestinal injury. It appears to allow for a shortened duration of hospitalization.

Elderly and frail patients with multiple myeloma (MM) are more vulnerable to the toxicity of combination therapies, often resulting in treatment modifications and suboptimal outcomes. The phase 3 BOSTON study showed that once‐weekly selinexor and bortezomib with low‐dose dexamethasone (XVd) improved PFS and ORR compared with standard twice‐weekly bortezomib and moderate‐dose dexamethasone (Vd) in patients with previously treated MM. This is a retrospective subgroup analysis of the multicenter, prospective, randomized BOSTON trial. Post hoc analyses were performed to compare XVd versus Vd safety and efficacy according to age and frailty status (<65 and ≥65 years, nonfrail and frail). Patients ≥65 years with XVd had higher ORR (OR 1.77, p = .024), ≥VGPR (OR, 1.68, p = .027), PFS (HR 0.55, p = .002), and improved OS (HR 0.63, p = .030), compared with Vd. In frail patients, XVd was associated with a trend towards better PFS (HR 0.69, p = .08) and OS (HR 0.62, p = .062). Significant improvements were also observed in patients <65 (ORR and TTNT) and nonfrail patients (PFS, ORR, ≥VGPR, and TTNT). Patients treated with XVd had a lower incidence of grade ≥ 2 peripheral neuropathy in ≥65 year‐old (22% vs. 37%; p = .0060) and frail patients (15% vs. 44%; p = .0002). Grade ≥3 TEAEs were not observed more often in older compared to younger patients, nor in frail compared to nonfrail patients. XVd is safe and effective in patients <65 and ≥65 and in nonfrail and frail patients with previously treated MM.

In the phase 3 BOSTON study, patients with multiple myeloma (MM) after 1-3 prior regimens were randomized to once-weekly selinexor (an oral inhibitor of exportin 1 [XPO1]) plus bortezomib-dexamethasone (XVd) or twice-weekly bortezomibdexamethasone (Vd). Compared with Vd, XVd was associated with significant improvements in median progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), and lower rates of peripheral neuropathy, with trends in overall survival (OS) favoring XVd. In BOSTON, 141 (35.1%) patients had MM with high-risk (presence of del[17p], t[4;14], t[14;16], or ≥4 copies of amp1q21) cytogenetics (XVd, n = 70; Vd, n = 71), and 261 (64.9%) exhibited standard-risk cytogenetics (XVd, n = 125; Vd, n = 136).Among patients with high-risk MM, median PFS was 12.91 months for XVd and 8.61 months for Vd (HR, 0.73 [95% CI, (0.4673, 1.1406)], p = 0.082), and ORRs were 78.6% and 57.7%, respectively (OR 2.68; p = 0.004). In the standard-risk subgroup, median PFS was 16.62 months for XVd and 9.46 months for Vd (HR 0.61; p = 0.004), and ORRs were 75.2% and 64.7%, respectively (OR 1.65; p = 0.033). The safety profiles of XVd and Vd in both subgroups were consistent with the overall population. These data suggest that selinexor can confer benefits to patients with MM regardless of cytogenetic risk. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03110562.

Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) is a chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy studied in patients with triple-class exposed multiple myeloma (TCE-MM) in the single arm CARTITUDE-1 study. To assess cilta-cel’s effectiveness compared to real-world clinical practice (RWCP), we performed adjusted comparisons using individual patient data from CARTITUDE-1 and LocoMMotion, a prospective, multinational study of patients with TCE-MM. Comparisons were performed using inverse probability weighting (IPW). In CARTITUDE-1, 113 patients were enrolled, and 97 patients were infused with cilta-cel. In LocoMMotion, 248 patients were enrolled, and 170 patients were included in comparisons vs. infused patients. 92 unique regimens were used in LocoMMotion, most frequently carfilzomib-dexamethasone (13.7%), pomalidomide-cyclophosphamide-dexamethasone (13.3%) and pomalidomide-dexamethasone (11.3%). Adjusted comparisons showed that patients treated with cilta-cel were 3.12-fold more likely to respond to treatment vs. RWCP (RR 3.12, 95% CI: 2.24, 4.00), had a reduced risk of progression or death by 85% (PFS HR 0.15, 95% CI: 0.08, 0.29), and a lower risk of death of 80% (OS HR 0.20, 95% CI: 0.09, 0.41). Incremental improvement vs. baseline in HRQOL for cilta-cel vs. RWCP at week 52 as measured by EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status was 13.4 (95% CI: 3.5, 23.6) and increased to 30.8 (95% CI: 21.8, 39.8) when including death as additional information regarding patients’ health status. Patients treated with cilta-cel experienced more adverse events vs. RWCP (any grade:100% vs. 83.5%). Results from this study demonstrate improved efficacy outcomes of cilta-cel vs. RWCP and highlight its potential as a novel and effective treatment option for patients with TCE-MM.