Новое применение XPO1 для лечения миэлофиброза.

Background

Myelofibrosis (MF) is a myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) comprising 2 distinct entities, primary MF (PMF), which develops de novo, and secondary MF, which progresses from an antecedent BCR-ABL1 –negative MPN such as essential thrombocythemia (ET) or polycythemia vera (PV). 1 Classified as either post-ET/PV MF, secondary MF is characterized by histopathologic bone marrow features that are often indistinguishable from PMF. 2 MF represents a clinically heterogeneous group of disorders that are typified by systemic symptoms, progressive cytopenias, hepatosplenomegaly, and cachexia. 3

The wide range of MF clinical phenotypes is inherently related to the pathophysiology of these “classic” BCR-ABL1 -negative MPNs. Clonal expansion of a single mutated hematopoietic stem cell (HSC) leads to hyperplasia of varying degrees in 1 or multiple hematopoietic cell lines: predominantly erythroid cells in PV, megakaryocytes in ET, and the deposition of reticulin and collagen fibers in PMF. 4 Expansion of the malignant HSC is associated with an inflammatory milieu that results in an altered stromal microenvironment, which ultimately contributes to the aberrant trafficking of malignant CD34 + cells to extramedullary sites of hematopoiesis. 5 This further hinders normal hematopoiesis, which can manifest as single or multiple lineage cytopenias. Founded on this imbalance of clonal expansion vs normal hematopoiesis, MF is often categorized into a myeloproliferative phenotype and a myelodepletive phenotype. 6

Central to the pathogenesis of MPNs, and therefore MF, is constitutive activation of the JAK/STAT signaling pathway. The JAK2 V617F somatic mutation, identified in 2005, is now well established as the driver mutation in ∼95% of PV, 50% to 60% of ET, and 50% to 60% of PMF cases. 7 Driver mutations involving JAK2, MPL , and CALR lead to constitutive phosphorylation of STAT proteins, as well as activation of various downstream pathways including phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase, mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK), and NF-κB. 4 Ultimately, this signaling cascade culminates in expression of an array of genes that govern the expression of cellular proliferation and production of inflammatory cytokines. Other subsequently identified somatic driver mutations include acquired subclonal mutations in epigenetic regulators ( ASXL1 , EZH2 , TET2 , and IDH1/2 ), the spliceosome ( U2AF1 , SRSF2 , and SF3B1 ), and tumor suppressors ( TP53 ), which further influence the biology and phenotype of MF.

While JAK2 , CALR , and MPL driver mutations are involved in clonal expansion of the malignant HSC in MPNs, many downstream cell signaling pathways have been further implicated as fundamental mediators of bone marrow fibrosis, specifically transforming growth factor β (TGF-β) and NF-κB. 8 , 9 Bone marrow fibroblasts, which deposit collagen and reticulin, are distinct from the malignant clone but are activated by inflammatory cytokines released by the clonal MPN cells. 5 These fibrogenic cytokines are released, in large part, by activated megakaryocytes, underscoring megakaryocyte hyperplasia as fundamental to MF pathophysiology. TGF-β1 elaborated by malignant megakaryocytes has been shown to promote collagen synthesis and is implicated as a critical cytokine-mediating bone marrow fibrosis. 10 Additionally, TGF-β1 upregulates osteoprotegerin expression and protein synthesis, which inhibits bone resorption and further promotes bone marrow fibrosis by decreasing matrix degradation. 11 To better understand molecular mechanisms involved in megakaryocyte hyperplasia and bone marrow fibrosis, differences in megakaryocyte gene expression were investigated, identifying overexpression of immunophilin FKBP51 in MF megakaryocytes. 9 FKBP51 overexpression leads to activation of NF-κB, which indirectly leads to greater production of TGF-β1. 12 Although targeting driver mutations is an appealing therapeutic option to eliminate disease at the HSC source, recognition of TGF-β and NF-κB as vital downstream signaling pathways has identified additional targets for modulating bone marrow fibrosis.

JAKis

An improved understanding of the genetic framework and biology of MF has led to clinical development of therapeutics that target the JAK-STAT signaling pathway. The first approved JAK inhibitor (JAKi), ruxolitinib, received US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 2011 based on the Controlled Myelofibrosis Study with Oral JAK Inhibitor Treatment (COMFORT) 1 and 2 trials, which demonstrated significant spleen volume reduction (SVR), reduction in disease-related symptoms, and improved quality of life. 13 , 14 In a long-term analysis of 5-year pooled data from the COMFORT 1 and 2 trials, ruxolitinib demonstrated improved overall survival (OS) of 5.3 years in International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) intermediate-2 and high-risk MF, compared with 3.8 years in the control group. 15 Despite lack of disease modification in terms of histopathologic and molecular changes, several long-term updates in the post-FDA approval era of ruxolitinib have shown a significant survival advantage. The European Registry for Myeloproliferative Neoplasms: towards a better understanding of Epidemiology, Survival and Treatment (ERNEST) registry, which enrolled patients with MF from 13 centers across 5 European countries, provided an updated real-world analysis of >1000 patients, which demonstrated a median OS of 7.7 years in patients treated with ruxolitinib, compared with 3.4 years when treated with hydroxyurea alone. 16 In a US-based real-world claims-based study, 1677 patients with intermediate- and high-risk MF were divided into 3 groups based on ruxolitinib exposure and FDA approval status at the time of diagnosis. The risk of mortality was significantly lower in the postapproval groups regardless of ruxolitinib exposure, with the lowest mortality in the postapproval group who were exposed to ruxolitinib. 17

Fedratinib, which differs from ruxolitinib in its selective inhibition of JAK2 and FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3, was FDA approved based on favorable spleen and symptom improvement in the JAKi-naïve and previously treated populations, reported in the JAKARTA 1 and 2 trials, respectively. Fedratinib was effective in attaining spleen and symptom response in nearly a third of treated patients despite failure of prior ruxolitinib therapy, solidifying its commercial use as a second-line agent. 18 , 19 Fedratinib was granted FDA approval in 2019 with a “black box warning” for Wernicke encephalopathy after an initial clinical hold was placed to investigate the development of neurologic symptoms. 20

Nearly all patients with MF will develop anemia during their disease course, and approximately one-third of patients will develop therapy-limiting thrombocytopenia. 21 , 22 In addition, 2 of the most common treatment-related adverse events of ruxolitinib and fedratinib are anemia and thrombocytopenia. 13 , 20 This can make initiation of treatment difficult in patients with MF who are cytopenic and can often lead to dose modifications and interruption in therapy. Recently, momelotinib and pacritinib have been approved for use in patients with anemia and thrombocytopenia, respectively. Momelotinib is a selective inhibitor of JAK1, JAK2, and the bone morphogenic kinase ACVR1. Via inhibition of ACVR1 in preclinical animal models, momelotinib was shown to decrease expression of hepcidin in the liver, leading to release of iron from cellular stores and resultant improved erythropoiesis. 23 Momelotinib was FDA approved in September 2023 for the treatment of intermediate- and high-risk MF in adults with anemia based on the landmark phase 3 MOMENTUM clinical trial, in which patients with MF previously treated with a JAKi and with anemia, defined by hemoglobin of <10 g/dL, were randomized to receive either momelotinib or danazol. 24 The trial met its primary end point of improvement in MF-related total symptom score (TSS), but, more importantly, hemoglobin stabilization and rate of transfusion independence at week 24 in the momelotinib treatment group were statistically noninferior to that of the danazol group. 24 Furthermore, although transfusion independence rates were noninferior at week 24 (30% in the momelotinib arm compared with 20% in the danazol arm), transfusion independence rates at week 48 were 57% in those who continued on momelotinib and 60% in those who crossed over from the danazol arm. 25 Similarly, pacritinib, has received FDA approval for the treatment of intermediate and high-risk MF in patients with severe thrombocytopenia, defined as platelet count of <50 x 10 3 /μL. Pacritinib is a selective inhibitor of JAK2 and IRAK1 pathways. Because JAK1 signaling inhibition has been implicated in impaired megakaryopoiesis and thrombopoiesis, sparing of JAK1 inhibition can minimize treatment-related thrombocytopenia. 26 Pacritinib received accelerated FDA approval in February 2022 based on the phase 3 PERSIST-2 clinical trial, in which patients with MF and thrombocytopenia (defined by platelet count of <100 x 10 3 /μL), were randomized to pacritinib 200 mg twice daily, pacritinib 400 mg once daily, or best available therapy. 27 Spleen response was obtained in 29% of patients treated with pacritinib with platelet counts of <50 x 10 3 /μL compared with only 3% in patients who received best available therapy, including ruxolitinib. 27 More recent emerging data confirm that pacritinib is also a more potent ACVR1 inhibitor than momelotinib. In the PERSIST-2 trial, pacritinib was associated with a 37% transfusion independence rate in the cytopenic MF population. 28

JAKi combination regimens

Although there are now 4 FDA-approved treatments for MF, further therapeutic options are unfortunately limited for patients that progress on, or cannot tolerate, JAKis. Other agents that target disease-relevant pathways outside of the JAK-STAT pathway are actively being evaluated in clinical trials. Navitoclax is an inhibitor of B-cell lymphoma 2 (Bcl-2)/Bcl-xL, antiapoptotic proteins that are increased as a consequence of JAK-STAT pathway activation. 29 Preclinical studies evaluating dual inhibition of JAK2 and downstream Bcl-2/Bcl-xL have demonstrated synergistic activity in MF models. 30 Clinically, the addition of navitoclax to ruxolitinib in patients who failed ruxolitinib monotherapy was explored in a phase 2 safety/efficacy trial and demonstrated a tolerable safety profile, a reduction in MF-associated symptoms and spleen volume, and improvement in bone marrow fibrosis. 31 Initial results from a phase 3 placebo-controlled trial of navitoclax in combination with ruxolitinib vs ruxolitinib alone in patients with JAKi-naïve, intermediate-2/high-risk MF demonstrated SVR of ≥35% (SVR35) of 63.2% at 24 weeks in the navitoclax plus ruxolitinib group compared with 31.5% in the ruxolitinib plus placebo group, although with no significant difference in TSS. 32 Grade 3 adverse events occurred in 85% of patients in the combination arm vs 70% of patients in the placebo arm, including increased rates of grade 3 thrombocytopenia (51% vs 15%), neutropenia (38% vs 4%), and anemia (46% vs 39%).

Pelabresib is an inhibitor of bromodomain and extraterminal (BET) proteins, which regulate transcription of many oncogenes and directly affect NF-κB activity. 33 It is postulated that attenuation of the NF-κB pathway through BET inhibition may impart a disease-modifying effect in MF given the well-documented pivotal role of NF-κB in the proinflammatory state. 34 Preclinical studies of pelabresib have shown that BET inhibition alone or in combination with JAK inhibition leads to potent reduction in inflammatory signaling, and is associated with significant disease modification in a murine model of MF. 35 The phase 2 MANIFEST study included a cohort of 84 patients with JAKi-naïve MF who received combination therapy pelabresib plus ruxolitinib. Notable grade ≥3 toxicities included thrombocytopenia (12%) and anemia (35%). In efficacy analysis at 24 weeks, 68% of patients achieved SVR35 and 56% had a ≥50% reduction in TSS (TSS50). Additionally, of note, 28% of patients had reduction of marrow fibrosis by at least 1 grade, and 29.5% of patients attained at least 25% decrease in JAK2 V617F variant allele frequency, suggesting the potential for disease modification. 36 Pelabresib is being further evaluated in the phase 3 MANIFEST-2 trial, in which patients who are JAKi naïve are randomized to receive combination pelabresib plus ruxolitinib vs ruxolitinib plus placebo. 37 The study includes patients with dynamic IPSS (DIPSS) intermediate-1 MF, a population of patients who have been historically excluded or underrepresented in prior randomized MF trials. Preliminary analysis demonstrated significantly greater SVR at week 24 in the pelabresib plus ruxolitinib treatment group compared with the ruxolitinib plus placebo treatment group, with SVR35 of 65.9% vs 35.2% ( P ≤ .001). The pelabresib plus ruxolitinib arm also had a strong trend toward improved TSS50 at 24 weeks ( P = .0545), which was evident across all TSS domains. The safety profile of combination pelabresib plus ruxolitinib was consistent with the phase 2 results, and no new concerning signal of toxicity was noted. Importantly, anemia was reported less frequently in the pelabresib plus ruxolitinib group, and a numerically higher proportion of patients achieved a hemoglobin response, with fewer patients requiring red blood cell transfusion. 38 With completion of the full MANIFEST-2 analysis, authors anticipate definitive efficacy results of pelabresib combination therapy in patients who are JAKi naïve, as well as insights into treatment initiation at an earlier stage of disease.

Despite these recent advances in targeted therapies, current drug therapy for MF remains mostly palliative in nature, and the only potentially curative treatment modality is allogeneic HSC transplant. 39 Unfortunately, survival outcomes after discontinuation of ruxolitinib are poor, with progression-free survival and OS of 6 months and 11 months, respectively. 40 Furthermore, although symptom management and spleen reduction with JAKi are clinically meaningful, none of the currently approved treatment options have shown clear disease-modifying capability.

XPO1

Trafficking between the nuclear and cytoplasmic compartments is a highly regulated process mediated at the nuclear pore complex by a class of import and export receptors called karyopherins. Karyopherins bind to specific nuclear localization signals or nuclear export signals (NES) that are located in potential cargo proteins and are rich in hydrophobic residues such as leucine. 41 , 42 The nuclear envelope provides a sequestered environment for DNA replication, RNA transcription, and cell cycle regulation, and most transcription factors and tumor suppressor proteins require nuclear retention to induce gene expression and downstream signaling. 43 Mislocalization of nuclear regulatory proteins causes their functional inactivation. This may allow for the evasion of cell cycle arrest, apoptosis, or autophagy in response to DNA damage or metabolic stress. 44 As such, aberrant nuclear export of tumor suppressor proteins can play an important role in malignant transformation and resistance to therapy, and it therefore represents a novel target for drug development. 45

Exportin 1 (XPO1), also known as chromosome region maintenance 1, is a ubiquitous nuclear export protein in the karyopherin family that drives energy-dependent translocation of a variety of signaling and regulatory proteins of >40 kDa in size as well as various RNA species. 46 , 47 The guanosine triphosphate–binding nuclear protein Ran facilities the export of cargo proteins through complexing with XPO1, inducing a conformational change and allowing binding to the NES domain on the cargo protein. 48 Although XPO1 is fundamental to normal cellular function, overexpression or dysregulation of XPO1 in malignant cells leads to an increased export of >200 nuclear proteins and is associated with both poor prognosis and drug resistance. 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 High expression of XPO1 is found in myeloid diseases such as acute myeloid leukemia and chronic myeloid leukemia; other hematologic malignancies including acute lymphoblastic leukemia and multiple myeloma (MM); and many solid tumor malignancies including ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer, gastric cancer, sarcomas, melanoma, and cervical cancer. 55 , 56 , 57 XPO1 has been shown to target multiple tumor suppressor proteins, growth regulators, and antiapoptotic proteins for nuclear export, including retinoblastoma, p53, adenomatous polyposis coli, IκB, p21, p27, FOXO, and topoisomerase, among others. 43 It is also important to highlight the recognized nuclear transport–independent functions of XPO1, including regulating mitotic spindle nucleation and assembly, which may also contribute to dysregulated cell division. 58 Therefore, XPO1 inhibition is an intriguing therapeutic target that has shown promising in vitro and in vivo activity across multiple tumor types.

Selinexor (KP-330), along with its second generation analog eltanexor (KPT-8602), is a first-in-class orally bioavailable selective and reversible inhibitor of XPO1 that binds at the cysteine-528 residue within the NES-binding pocket in order to block nuclear export ( Figure 1 ). 43 Selinexor has shown efficacy in different tumor models through a variety of mechanisms corresponding to the broad range of XPO1 cargo proteins, including cell cycle arrest; decreased NF-κB signaling; and decreased phosphorylation and activation of STAT, Akt, and other growth pathways. 41 , 42 , 59 Selinexor treatment of myeloma cells triggers upregulation of gene transcripts for p53 targets and drivers of apoptosis. 60 In a murine prostate cancer model, XPO1 inhibition caused increased nuclear localization and degradation of cyclin D1, among other tumor suppressor proteins, which induced cell cycle arrest and reduced tumor proliferation. 61 Fluorescent cell tracking in a variety of cancer cell lines exposed to selinexor similarly showed a protracted G1 and early S phase with decreased proliferation and subsequent cell death. 62 Additionally, in a model of autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease, XPO1 inhibition led to cell cycle arrest and decreased cyst growth through downregulation of CDK4. 63 Upregulated XPO1 increases cytoplasmic export and degradation of the NF-κB inhibitor IκB, which increases NF-κB signaling and downstream transcriptional activation. Additionally, selinexor has been shown to increase nuclear accumulation of IκB and prevent its phosphorylation and proteasomal degradation, thereby attenuating NF-κB signaling in multiple cancer cell lines, including MM, non-small cell lung cancer, glioma, and sarcoma. 60 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 Of note, multiple studies have shown synergy with selinexor and proteasome inhibitors in vitro in reducing IκB degradation. 64 , 66 , 67 , 68 Figure 1. Mechanism of XPO1 inhibition in MF. The figure depicts the mechanism of action of selinexor, a novel XPO1 inhibitor, demonstrating the downstream effects on nuclear and cytoplasmic cell signaling pathways relevant to MF pathobiology. Figure created by Lilas Armstrong-Davies and The Mount Sinai Hospital.

Selinexor has similarly shown efficacy in abrogating growth pathways, including those downstream of JAK-STAT signaling. In a model of BCR-ABL1 –positive chronic myeloid leukemia and acute lymphoblastic leukemia, XPO1 inhibition was shown to reduce phosphorylation and activation of STAT5, Akt, and MAPK; upregulate tumor suppressors such as p53 and PP2A; and increase sensitivity to imatinib in vitro . 69 , 70 Selinexor similarly repressed STAT3 activation and binding to the survivin promoter in a breast cancer cell line and xenograft model and inhibited Akt activation and cyclin expression in liposarcoma cells. 71 , 72 In chronic lymphocytic leukemia cells, selinexor inhibits phosphorylation of extracellular signal-regulated kinases (ERK) and Akt, which reduces c-Myc activation and subsequent cell cycling. 73 Selinexor blocks mammalian target of rapamycin signaling and has potential synergy with everolimus in MM and lymphoma cells. 74 , 75 Interestingly, blockade of XPO1 also reduces export of translational elongation factors such as eIF4E, reducing translation of oncogenes such as MYC , MCL1 , and BCL2, potentially increasing sensitivity to the Bcl-2 inhibitor venetoclax. 76

In summary, nuclear export blockade via selinexor modulates tumor growth and survival by increasing nuclear localization and activity of p53 and other tumor suppressors, downregulating NF-κB signaling, and decreasing activation and translation of proliferation pathways, which collectively trigger cell cycle arrest and apoptosis in preclinical tumor models.

Clinical data in other malignancies

As noted above, selinexor is currently under evaluation in preclinical and clinical models of multiple malignancies. Selinexor was FDA approved in 2019 for use in MM, both in combination with dexamethasone alone in relapsed and refractory disease in patients who have received at least 4 prior therapies and in combination with dexamethasone and bortezomib in patients who have received at least one prior therapy. 77 , 78 Selinexor and other XPO1 targets continue to be studied in various combinations and in earlier lines of treatment in MM, as well as in the setting of chimeric antigen receptor T cells. 79 , 80

Because of the ubiquitous nature of XPO1, selinexor also continues to be investigated in a multitude of different hematologic malignancies ( Table 1 ). Selinexor gained its third FDA approval in 2020 in relapsed and refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma after being investigated as a single agent. 81 Early phase 1/2 trials have been initiated in patients with acute myeloid leukemia, which have established selinexor as a safe and tolerable therapeutic option, although with varying efficacy. 93 In another preclinical model–informed phase 1 trial of myelodysplastic syndrome with excess blasts, sequential selinexor and azacitidine demonstrated synergy with impressive overall response rates, including in a patient with TP53 -mutated disease. 84 Finally, although a phase 2 trial of selinexor for Richter transformation in the setting of chronic lymphocytic leukemia failed to show early efficacy, it remains a potential therapeutic option based on preclinical evidence and phase 1 data in combination with ibrutinib. 85 Table 1. Clinical trials of selinexor in other malignancies Malignancy Study population Clinical trial Intervention Efficacy outcomes Toxicity outcomes Reference MM Relapsed/refractory (5 prior lines and triple-class refractory) STORM trial (phase 2b) Selinexor 80 mg twice weekly plus dexamethasone. ORR 26%; OS 15.6 mo in patients with at least minimal response vs <2 mo in patients with PD. Most common grade 3/4: thrombocytopenia (59%), anemia (44%), hyponatremia (22%), and neutropenia (21%). Most common nonhematologic grade 3/4: nausea (10%) and vomiting (3%). 77 MM Relapsed/refractory (1-3 prior lines) BOSTON trial (phase 3) Bortezomib, dexamethasone, and selinexor, 100 mg weekly vs bortezomib and dexamethasone alone. Median PFS 13.9 mo in selinexor arm vs 9.5 mo; ORR 76.4% in selinexor arm vs 62.3%; median OS not reached in selinexor arm. Most common grade 3/4: thrombocytopenia (39% vs 17%), anemia (16% vs 10%), fatigue (13% vs 1%), and pneumonia (12% vs 10%). 78 DLBCL Relapsed/refractory (≥2 lines or not a transplant candidate) SADAL trial (phase 2) Selinexor 60 mg twice weekly. ORR 28%; CR 12%; PR 17%; median PFS 2.6 mo; median OS 9.1 mo; median OS was not reached in patients with PR or better. Most common grade 3/4: thrombocytopenia (46%), neutropenia (24%), anemia (22%), and fatigue (11%). Most common nonhematologic TRAE were limited to grade 1/2. 81 NHL Frontline therapy Phase 1 R-CHOP plus selinexor (escalating dose to 100 mg weekly), followed by weekly selinexor maintenance for 1 year. ORR 100%; CR 90% Recommended phase 2 dose, selinexor 60 mg weekly. Most common grade 3/4: neutropenia (33%), anemia (17%), fatigue (17%), thrombosis (17%), syncope (17%), hypertension (17%), and supraventricular tachycardia (17%). 82 AML Frontline therapy (unfit for intensive therapy) Phase 1/2 Azacitidine, venetoclax, and selinexor, 60 mg weekly. ORR 90% Most common grade ≥ 3: thrombocytopenia (35%), neutropenia (35%), and infections (15%). 83 MDS-EB Frontline therapy Phase 1b/2 Sequential azacitidine and selinexor (40 mg weekly, 40 mg twice weekly, or 60 mg weekly). ORR 78.6%; CR 21%. Patients with mutated TP53 : CR in 1 of 3; marrow CR in 2 of 3. MTD and recommended phase 2 dose remain unknown. Most common TRAE (any grade): neutropenia (93%), anemia (87%), thrombocytopenia (80%), and fatigue (50%). 84 CLL or NHL Relapsed/refractory Phase 1 Ibrutinib plus selinexor (escalating dose: 40 mg weekly, 30 mg twice weekly). ORR 32% (CLL 44%, DLBCL 33%, and Richter transformation 11%). Median PFS 8.9 mo in CLL and 2.7 mo in NHL. Median OS 58.9 mo in CLL and 5.1 mo in NHL. MTD selinexor 40 mg weekly with ibrutinib 420 mg daily. Most common grade ≥ 3: thrombocytopenia (24%), anemia (18%), and neutropenia (12%). 85 Glioblastoma Relapsed Phase 2 Selinexor 50 mg/m 2 twice weekly, 60 mg twice weekly, or 80 mg weekly. 6-month PFS 17.7% (selinexor 80 mg weekly), 10% (selinexor 50 mg/m 2 twice weekly), and 7.7% (selinexor 60 mg twice weekly). Median OS 10.5 mo (selinexor 50 mg/m 2 twice weekly), 8.5 mo (selinexor 60 mg twice weekly), 10.2 mo (selinexor 80 mg weekly); 28% of patients with reduction in tumor size. Most common hematologic TRAE (any grade): thrombocytopenia (43%), neutropenia (26%), and anemia (17%). Most common nonhematologic TRAE (any grade): fatigue (60%), nausea (59%), decreased appetite (43%), vomiting (30%), and hyponatremia (20%). 86 Dedifferentiated liposarcoma Relapsed/refractory (2-5 prior lines) Phase 2/3 Selinexor 60 mg twice weekly vs placebo. PFS 2.8 mo in selinexor arm vs 2.1 mo; ORR 2.7% in selinexor arm vs 0%. No difference in OS at median 14.6 mo. Most common grade 3/4: anemia (19%), hyponatremia (11%), asthenia (10%), and thrombocytopenia (10%). 87 Pancreatic adenocarcinoma Frontline therapy (metastatic) Phase 1b Gemcitabine, nab-paclitaxel, and selinexor (escalating dose: 60 mg weekly, 80 mg weekly). PR 40% SD 40% PD 20% MTD selinexor 60 mg weekly. 88 Triple-negative breast cancer Relapsed/refractory (metastatic) Phase 2 Selinexor 60 mg twice weekly. No clinical benefit PD 70% SD 30% PR 0% CR 0% Most common grade 3/4: thrombocytopenia (10%), fatigue (10%), and dyspnea (10%). 89 Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer Refractory to abiraterone and/or enzalutamide Phase 2 Selinexor 60 mg twice weekly. PFS not reported, study terminated early; PR 25%; SD 50%; unconfirmed PD 25%. 21% of patients came off study because of unacceptable tolerability; most common TRAE (any grade): anorexia (86%), nausea (64%), weight loss (50%), fatigue (50%), and thrombocytopenia (50%). 90 Colorectal cancer Relapsed/refractory (metastatic, unresectable) SENTINEL (Phase 1) mFOLFOX plus selinexor (escalating dose: 40 mg, 60 mg, 80 mg on days 1, 3, and 8 of 2-week cycles). No relevant clinical activity observed. MTD not reported; 100% of patients at selinexor 40 mg and 66% at selinexor 20 mg dose had DLTs/withdrew. 91 Endometrial cancer Frontline therapy or first relapse with PR/CR to platinum-based chemotherapy SIENDO (Phase 3) Maintenance selinexor 80 mg weekly vs placebo. Median PFS 5.7 mo in selinexor arm vs 3.8 mo; wild-type TP53 subgroup: median PFS 27.4 mo in selinexor arm vs 5.2 mo; PFS improvement remained significant in tumors that were MSS/pMMR. Most common grade 3/4: neutropenia (18% vs 0%), nausea (12% vs 0%), and thrombocytopenia (9% vs 0%). 92 AML, acute myeloid leukemia; CLL, chronic lymphocytic leukemia; CR, complete response; DLBCL, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; DLT, dose-limiting toxicity; MDS-EB, myelodysplastic syndrome with excess blasts,; MSS/pMRR, microsatellite stable/mismatch repair proficient; MTD, maximum tolerated dose; NHL, non-Hodgkin lymphoma; ORR, overall response rate; PD, progressive disease; PFS, progression-free survival; PR, partial response; R-CHOP, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, Oncovin [vincristine], and prednisone; SD, stable disease; TRAE, treatment related adverse event.

Selinexor has been evaluated in early studies in a number of solid tumors, including glioblastoma, endometrial cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, colorectal cancer, pancreatic cancer, sarcoma, and melanoma, with mixed efficacy and tolerability ( Table 1 ). 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 94 , 95 , 96 Notably, it has been studied as a maintenance therapy after initial cytotoxic chemotherapy in the phase 3 SIENDO trial of advanced endometrial cancer. 94 In a prespecified exploratory analysis stratified by TP53 mutational status, patients with wild-type TP53 had significantly improved outcomes with selinexor, highlighting the role of selinexor in modulating tumor suppressor pathways and its potential efficacy in malignant cells with intact p53 function. 92 , 97 , 98

Multiple prior studies of selinexor have been curbed by significant dose-limiting toxicities. Some of the more frequent adverse events noted in patients receiving selinexor include gastrointestinal toxicities, thrombocytopenia, fatigue, and hyponatremia, especially in the twice weekly dosing studied in early clinical trials. 41 , 99 Mechanistic studies revealed that dose-limiting cytopenias were related to an inhibitory effect on thrombopoietin signaling and resulting impairment in megakaryocyte maturation through inhibition of STAT3 phosphorylation. 100 Toxicity could therefore be treated with thrombopoietin mimetics and other growth factors. Gastrointestinal and constitutional symptoms, including nausea, vomiting, and fatigue, are also frequent adverse events that were the most common indications for drug discontinuation in early studies. 101 Because selinexor crosses the blood-brain barrier, these are thought to be centrally mediated, and use of prophylactic and centrally acting antiemetics can significantly mitigate the effects of nausea and anorexia. 99 Additionally, certain central nervous system–mediated toxicities, such as gastrointestinal side effects, may be attenuated with eltanexor, which does not cross the blood-brain barrier. 102 Although initially limiting its use in clinical practice, adaptation of lower twice weekly doses, once weekly dosing, and aggressive supportive care with antiemetics and growth factor support has increased selinexor tolerability. 103

Selinexor in MF

Given the broad utility of selinexor in multiple tumor types, as well as its ability to reduce NF-κB and downstream JAK-STAT signaling, selinexor has been evaluated in MF murine models, both as monotherapy and in combination with ruxolitinib. Yan et al performed an initial short-hairpin RNA screen of JAK2 -mutated cell lines and found that transcripts involved in nuclear-cytoplasmic transport such as RAN and RANBP2 were critical for cellular proliferation and survival. 104 Selinexor was found to reduce viability of JAK2 mutated cells in vitro. Notably, selinexor inhibited MF cells ex vivo and increased nuclear localization of p53, but it did not significantly affect growth of wild-type JAK2 cord blood stem cells. When given in conjunction with ruxolitinib, there was a synergistic increase in apoptosis in MF cells compared with cord blood stem cells. The group similarly tested the efficacy of selinexor in a mouse model of post-PV MF and found that although mice treated with ruxolitinib alone acquired resistance to JAK2 inhibitors, treatment with selinexor caused significant reduction in spleen size and white blood cell count, with most pronounced improvement in the group receiving selinexor/ruxolitinib combination therapy. 104 Maloof et al have also demonstrated single-agent activity of selinexor, as well as synergistic and additive activity in combination with other MF-directed therapies such as ruxolitinib, pacritinib, momelotinib, pelabresib, and navitoclax when tested in distinct driver mutation cell lines. 105 In the HEL cell line, selinexor plus ruxolitinib led to degradation of XPO1 protein as well as enhanced reduction of the prosurvival protein myeloid cell leukemia-1 and increased cleavage of poly-(adenosine 5'-diphosphate-ribose) polymerase. The in vitro antiproliferative activity was associated with downregulation of key gene sets involved in proliferation (MYC), cell senescence (CDKN1A/B), and cell cycle arrest (cyclin D1/A2/B1). Selinexor activity was also observed in a ruxolitinib-resistant HEL subclone at clinically achievable doses. 105

Selinexor has also demonstrated effective and selective killing of CD34 + MPN cells harboring JAK2 V617F and TP53 mutations. 106 Expression levels of TP53 and both the downstream intrinsic and extrinsic apoptotic pathway proteins were increased with reduced expression of prosurvival Bcl-xL and c-Myc and increased cell cycle arrest. In in vitro combination studies, selinexor plus ruxolitinib or the HDM2 antagonist HDM201 led to enhanced and selective depletion of CD34 + MF cells and reduced colony formation. This intriguing data further support the ongoing evaluation of combination selinexor and ruxolitinib, as well as potential future non-JAKi–based combination therapy hinged on both p53-dependent and -independent mechanisms.

In clinical evaluation for MF, selinexor was initially studied as monotherapy at 60 or 80 mg weekly in a phase 2 single-arm study of patients with MF who progressed on, or were intolerant to, a JAKi. 107 In an early analysis of 12 patients, 56% of patients had attained SVR of ≥25% and 22% attained SVR35 at 24 weeks of treatment. Five of 8 evaluable patients had reduced symptom score at time of best response. One patient was noted to have had reduction in bone marrow fibrosis from grade 3 to grade 1 at 72 weeks of therapy, suggesting possible disease modification with selinexor therapy. Common grade 3/4 toxicities included fatigue (33%), anemia (33%), and thrombocytopenia (17%). Ten patients required dose reduction because of toxicity, and 6 patients discontinued treatment, including 1 death due to sepsis from a liver abscess. 107

Promising results of this selinexor monotherapy study provide rationale for the use of selinexor in other MF subpopulations. For example, patients with thrombocytopenia, who often receive suboptimal doses of JAKi given the on-target side effect of thrombocytopenia with JAK inhibition. A phase 2 study is currently ongoing evaluating selinexor monotherapy for patients with JAKi-naïve MF with a platelet count of 50 × 10 3 to 99 × 10 3 /μL ( NCT05980806 , XPORT-MF-044). 108 In this 2 arm, sequential trial design, patients in arm 1 will receive selinexor 60 mg weekly, and in arm 2 will receive selinexor 40 mg weekly. Patients who achieve SVR of <10% after 12 weeks or SVR35 after 24 weeks of selinexor monotherapy will have the option to add ruxolitinib or pacritinib to their treatment, based on platelet count. The primary end point is SVR35 at 24 weeks and secondary end points include TSS50 at week 24, anemia response at week 24, OS, and overall response rate. This trial is currently enrolling with planned enrollment of 29 patients to each arm, with an additional 30 patients that can be enrolled independently for the optional expansion arms. 108

Selinexor is also currently under clinical evaluation in combination with ruxolitinib in patients with JAKi-naïve disease. In a phase 1 dose escalation study of patients with MF with DIPSS intermediate or high-risk disease, selinexor was administered once weekly at 40 mg or 60 mg in combination with ruxolitinib, per standard of care. 109 In a preliminary analysis of 24 patients (10 patients at 40 mg and 14 patients at 60 mg), grade 3/4 toxicities included anemia (37.5%), thrombocytopenia (20.8%), neutropenia (12.5%), and atrial fibrillation (12.5%), with 2 patients (8.3%) discontinuing therapy because of toxicity. Notably, nausea and vomiting were limited to grade 1 events in patients receiving a prophylactic antiemetic, with only 1 patient who did not receive prophylaxis experiencing grade 3 nausea. Additionally, patients demonstrated a median weight increase of 3.3 kg at 24 weeks. At 24 weeks, SVR35 was achieved in 40% of patients at the 40 mg dose and in 79% of patients at the 60 mg dose, with TSS50 in 10% and 58% of patients, respectively. Importantly, 5 of 13 (38%) of patients with available data at 24 weeks showed ≥20% reduction in JAK2 / CALR / MPL driver mutation variant allele frequency, and the majority of patients showed decreased levels of inflammatory cytokines, supporting a possible role in disease modification. 109 Interestingly, reduction in interleukin-18 levels specifically correlated with SVR and TSS response at week 24 (R 2 = 0.29 and 0.28, respectively). It is important to note in this trial the relative stability in the median hemoglobin and platelet counts and the improvement in meaningful weight gain across treated patients, suggesting gastrointestinal toxicity was not occurring to a degree that compromised nutrition.

Table 2 provides a list of active and planned clinical trials evaluating selinexor in all myeloid malignancies. Table 2. Active and planned clinical trials evaluating selinexor in myeloid malignancies Study population Interventions Phase Primary outcome(s) NCT no. JAKi-naïve MF Selinexor plus ruxolitinib vs placebo plus ruxolitinib 1/3 Phase 1: MTD Phase 3: SVR35 04562389 MF, R/R, or intolerant to JAKi Selinexor monotherapy 2 Change in spleen volume 03627403 MF, JAKi-naïve with moderate thrombocytopenia (50 × 10 9 /L-100 × 10 9 /L) Selinexor monotherapy 2 SVR35 05980806 MF, R/R, or intolerant to JAKi Selinexor monotherapy vs clinicians’ choice 2 SVR35 04562870 AML, treatment-naïve Selinexor plus induction/consolidation chemotherapy 2 OS 02835222 AML, treatment-naïve, not candidate for intensive chemotherapy Selinexor plus azacitidine and venetoclax 2 CRc (CR/CRh/CRi) 05736965 AML, R/R DLBCL, R/R Selinexor plus venetoclax 1b MTD and ORR 03955783 Pediatric and young adults (aged 2-30 y) with R/R AML Selinexor and venetoclax plus salvage chemotherapy 1 MTD 04898894 Pediatric patients (aged 1-21 y) with R/R AML and ALL Selinexor monotherapy 1 Safety and tolerability 02091245 ALL, acute lymphoid leukemia; AML, acute myeloid leukemia; DLBCL, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; CR, complete response; CRc, composite complete response; CRh, complete response with partial hematologic recovery; Cri, complete response with incomplete hematologic recovery; MTD, maximal tolerated dose; NCT, National Clinical Trial; ORR, overall response rate; R/R, relapsed and refractory.

Upcoming phase 3 study

Given the promising phase 1 efficacy noted above, an international phase 3 randomized trial (XPORT-MF-034) is currently enrolling, evaluating selinexor and ruxolitinib combination therapy for patients with JAKi-naïve MF (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04562389 ). 110 Eligible patients include adults with DIPSS intermediate-1, intermediate-2, or high-risk MF with splenomegaly, defined by spleen volume of ≥450 cm 3 on imaging, as well as the presence of active symptoms, defined by at least 2 symptoms with a score of ≥3 or a TSS of ≥10. Exclusion criteria include platelet count of <100 × 10 3 /μL, >10% blasts in peripheral blood or bone marrow, or prior therapy with a JAKi or XPO1 inhibitor. Patients receive ruxolitinib twice daily and are randomized 2:1 to receive selinexor 60 mg weekly vs placebo, with randomization stratified by DIPSS risk score, spleen volume, and baseline platelet count. The primary end points are SVR35 and TSS50 at 24 weeks, with a key secondary end point of anemia response at week 24, all defined by International Working Group Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Research and Treatment and European Leukemia Network criteria.

Conclusion

Targeting of XPO1 offers a novel approach to the treatment of a broad array of malignancies. Recently emerging preclinical and early clinical data in MF support the global phase 3 trial of selinexor as the first-in-class XPO1 inhibitor, used in combination with ruxolitinib for patients with JAKi-naïve MF. At present, there are no validated clinical or laboratory biomarkers to guide therapeutic decision-making with available JAKis or combination regimens, including selinexor. Within the context of prospective studies, it will be important to evaluate and identify potential molecularly defined patient subsets that may be more likely to benefit from combination therapy with a BET inhibitor, Bcl-2/Bcl-xL inhibitor, or XPO1 inhibitor, while balancing potential increased toxicity. XPO1 alterations (expression level or mutation status) may be of value in developing a predictive biomarker-informed treatment algorithm. Through nuclear transport inhibition, multiple relevant disease related pathways are disturbed, resulting in the net effect of enhanced p53-dependent and -independent apoptosis and cell cycle arrest in CD34 + MPN stem cells. This MPN stem cell–depleting effect may ultimately prove to have disease modifying outcomes. It will be incumbent on randomized phase 3 trials to validate the biologic activity of this agent with outcome measures that are clinically meaningful, such as progression-free survival and OS.

Conflict-of-interest disclosure: P.V. has received consulting fees from AbbVie, Blueprint Medicines, Cogent Biosciences, Incyte, CTI BioPharma Corp (now Sobi), Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm, Novartis, Pfizer, Genentech, Servier, Stemline, and MorphoSys. J.M. receives research funding paid to the institution from Incyte, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, CTI BioPharma/Sobi, AbbVie, Karyopharm, Kartos, Geron, and PharmaEssentia; and receives consulting fees from Incyte, Novartis, MorphoSys, Karyopharm, Kartos, Geron, PharmaEssentia, Bristol Myers Squibb, AbbVie, Roche, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, CTI/Sobi, Galecto, and Pfizer. The remaining authors declare no competing financial interests.

References

1 Arber DA Orazi A Hasserjian RP International Consensus Classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemias: integrating morphologic, clinical, and genomic data Blood 140 11 2022 1200 1228 35767897 10.1182/blood.2022015850 PMC9479031

2 Barosi G Mesa RA Thiele J Proposed criteria for the diagnosis of post-polycythemia vera and post-essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis: a consensus statement from the International Working Group for Myelofibrosis Research and Treatment Leukemia 22 2 2008 437 438 17728787 10.1038/sj.leu.2404914

3 Thiele J Kvasnicka HM Orazi A The International Consensus classification of myeloid neoplasms and acute leukemias: myeloproliferative neoplasms Am J Hematol 98 3 2023 544 545 36600640 10.1002/ajh.26821

4 Vainchenker W Kralovics R Genetic basis and molecular pathophysiology of classical myeloproliferative neoplasms Blood 129 6 2017 667 679 28028029 10.1182/blood-2016-10-695940

5 Hoffman R Rondelli D Biology and treatment of primary myelofibrosis Hematology 2007 1 2007 346 354 10.1182/asheducation-2007.1.346 18024650

6 Marcellino BK Verstovsek S Mascarenhas J The myelodepletive phenotype in myelofibrosis: clinical relevance and therapeutic implication Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 20 7 2020 415 421 32199764 10.1016/j.clml.2020.01.008

7 Kralovics R Passamonti F Buser AS A gain-of-function mutation of JAK2 in myeloproliferative disorders N Engl J Med 352 17 2005 1779 1790 15858187 10.1056/NEJMoa051113

8 Dong M Blobe GC Role of transforming growth factor-β in hematologic malignancies Blood 107 12 2006 4589 4596 16484590 10.1182/blood-2005-10-4169 PMC1895802

9 Giraudier Sp Chagraoui Hd Komura E Overexpression of FKBP51 in idiopathic myelofibrosis regulates the growth factor independence of megakaryocyte progenitors Blood 100 8 2002 2932 2940 12351405 10.1182/blood-2002-02-0485

10 Chagraoui H Komura E Tulliez M Giraudier S Vainchenker W Wendling F Prominent role of TGF-beta 1 in thrombopoietin-induced myelofibrosis in mice Blood 100 10 2002 3495 3503 12393681 10.1182/blood-2002-04-1133

11 Chagraoui H Tulliez M Smayra T Stimulation of osteoprotegerin production is responsible for osteosclerosis in mice overexpressing TPO Blood 101 8 2003 2983 2989 12506018 10.1182/blood-2002-09-2839

12 Komura E Tonetti C Penard-Lacronique V Role for the nuclear factor κB pathway in transforming growth factor-β1 production in idiopathic myelofibrosis: possible relationship with FK506 binding protein 51 overexpression Cancer Res 65 8 2005 3281 3289 15833861 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-2339

13 Verstovsek S Mesa RA Gotlib J A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ruxolitinib for myelofibrosis N Engl J Med 366 9 2012 799 807 22375971 10.1056/NEJMoa1110557 PMC4822164

14 Harrison C Kiladjian J-J Al-Ali HK JAK inhibition with ruxolitinib versus best available therapy for myelofibrosis N Engl J Med 366 9 2012 787 798 22375970 10.1056/NEJMoa1110556

15 Verstovsek S Gotlib J Mesa RA Long-term survival in patients treated with ruxolitinib for myelofibrosis: COMFORT-I and -II pooled analyses J Hematol Oncol 10 1 2017 156 28962635 10.1186/s13045-017-0527-7 PMC5622445

16 Guglielmelli P Ghirardi A Carobbio A Impact of ruxolitinib on survival of patients with myelofibrosis in the real world: update of the ERNEST Study Blood Adv 6 2 2022 373 375 34753179 10.1182/bloodadvances.2021006006 PMC8791590

17 Verstovsek S Parasuraman S Yu J Real-world survival of US patients with intermediate- to high-risk myelofibrosis: impact of ruxolitinib approval Ann Hematol 101 1 2022 131 137 34625831 10.1007/s00277-021-04682-x PMC8720739

18 Pardanani A Harrison CN Cortes JE Results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study (JAKARTA) of the JAK2-selective inhibitor fedratinib (SAR302503) in patients with myelofibrosis (MF) Blood 122 21 2013 393

19 Harrison CN Schaap N Vannucchi AM Janus kinase-2 inhibitor fedratinib in patients with myelofibrosis previously treated with ruxolitinib (JAKARTA-2): a single-arm, open-label, non-randomised, phase 2, multicentre study Lancet Haematol 4 7 2017 e317 e324 28602585 10.1016/S2352-3026(17)30088-1 PMC8207822

20 Pardanani A Harrison C Cortes JE Safety and efficacy of fedratinib in patients with primary or secondary myelofibrosis: a randomized clinical trial JAMA Oncol 1 5 2015 643 651 26181658 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.1590

21 Naymagon L Mascarenhas J Myelofibrosis-related anemia: current and emerging therapeutic strategies Hemasphere 1 1 2017 e1 31723730 10.1097/HS9.0000000000000001 PMC6745971

22 Masarova L Mesa RA Hernández-Boluda JC Taylor JA Severe thrombocytopenia in myelofibrosis is more prevalent than previously reported Leuk Res 91 2020 106338 10.1016/j.leukres.2020.106338 PMC8895347 32200188

23 Asshoff M Petzer V Warr MR Momelotinib inhibits ACVR1/ALK2, decreases hepcidin production, and ameliorates anemia of chronic disease in rodents Blood 129 13 2017 1823 1830 28188131 10.1182/blood-2016-09-740092 PMC5693322

24 Verstovsek S Gerds AT Vannucchi AM Momelotinib versus danazol in symptomatic patients with anaemia and myelofibrosis (MOMENTUM): results from an international, double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study Lancet 401 10373 2023 269 280 36709073 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)02036-0

25 Gerds AT Verstovsek S Vannucchi AM Momelotinib versus danazol in symptomatic patients with anaemia and myelofibrosis previously treated with a JAK inhibitor (MOMENTUM): an updated analysis of an international, double-blind, randomised phase 3 study Lancet Haematol 10 9 2023 e735 e746 37517413 10.1016/S2352-3026(23)00174-6

26 Jarocha DJ Gadue P Tong W Newton RC Poncz M Janus kinase (Jak) 1 inhibition affects both megakaryopoiesis and thrombopoiesis Blood 132 suppl 1 2018 2559

27 Mascarenhas J Hoffman R Talpaz M Pacritinib vs best available therapy, including ruxolitinib, in patients with myelofibrosis: a randomized clinical trial JAMA Oncol 4 5 2018 652 659 29522138 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.5818 PMC5885169

28 Oh ST Mesa RA Harrison CN Pacritinib is a potent ACVR1 inhibitor with significant anemia benefit in patients with myelofibrosis Blood Adv 7 19 2023 5835 5842 37552106 10.1182/bloodadvances.2023010151 PMC10561048

29 Tremblay D Mascarenhas J Next generation therapeutics for the treatment of myelofibrosis Cells 10 5 2021 1034 33925695 10.3390/cells10051034 PMC8146033

30 Waibel M Solomon VS Knight DA Combined targeting of JAK2 and Bcl-2/Bcl-xL to cure mutant JAK2-driven malignancies and overcome acquired resistance to JAK2 inhibitors Cell Rep 5 4 2013 1047 1059 24268771 10.1016/j.celrep.2013.10.038 PMC3898474

31 Harrison CN Garcia JS Somervaille TCP Addition of navitoclax to ongoing ruxolitinib therapy for patients with myelofibrosis with progression or suboptimal response: phase II safety and efficacy J Clin Oncol 40 15 2022 1671 1680 35180010 10.1200/JCO.21.02188 PMC9113204

32 Pemmaraju N Mead AJ Somervaille TCP Transform-1: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, international phase 3 study of navitoclax in combination with ruxolitinib versus ruxolitinib plus placebo in patients with untreated myelofibrosis Blood 142 suppl 1 2023 620

33 Alqahtani A Choucair K Ashraf M Bromodomain and extra-terminal motif inhibitors: a review of preclinical and clinical advances in cancer therapy Future Sci OA 5 3 2019 FSO372 10.4155/fsoa-2018-0115 PMC6426170 30906568

34 Fleischman AG Inflammation as a driver of clonal evolution in myeloproliferative neoplasm Mediators Inflamm 2015 2015 606819 10.1155/2015/606819 PMC4619974 26538830

35 Kleppe M Koche R Zou L Dual targeting of oncogenic activation and inflammatory signaling increases therapeutic efficacy in myeloproliferative neoplasms Cancer Cell 33 1 2018 29 43.e27 29249691 10.1016/j.ccell.2017.11.009 PMC5760343

36 Mascarenhas J Kremyanskaya M Patriarca A MANIFEST: pelabresib in combination with ruxolitinib for Janus kinase inhibitor treatment-naïve myelofibrosis J Clin Oncol 41 32 2023 4993 5004 36881782 10.1200/JCO.22.01972 PMC10642902

37 Harrison CN Gupta VK Gerds AT Phase III MANIFEST-2: pelabresib + ruxolitinib vs placebo + ruxolitinib in JAK inhibitor treatment-naive myelofibrosis Future Oncol 18 27 2022 2987 2997 35950489 10.2217/fon-2022-0484

38 Rampal RK Grosicki S Chraniuk D Pelabresib in combination with ruxolitinib for Janus kinase inhibitor treatment-naïve patients with myelofibrosis: results of the MANIFEST-2 randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study Blood 142 suppl 1 2023 628

39 Ali H Bacigalupo A 2021 Update on allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant for myelofibrosis: a review of current data and applications on risk stratification and management Am J Hematol 96 11 2021 1532 1538 34536293 10.1002/ajh.26349 PMC9293100

40 Mascarenhas J Mehra M He J Potluri R Loefgren C Patient characteristics and outcomes after ruxolitinib discontinuation in patients with myelofibrosis J Med Econ 23 7 2020 721 727 32159402 10.1080/13696998.2020.1741381

41 Balasubramanian SK Azmi AS Maciejewski J Selective inhibition of nuclear export: a promising approach in the shifting treatment paradigms for hematological neoplasms Leukemia 36 3 2022 601 612 35091658 10.1038/s41375-021-01483-z PMC8885406

42 Tan DS Bedard PL Kuruvilla J Siu LL Razak AR Promising SINEs for embargoing nuclear-cytoplasmic export as an anticancer strategy Cancer Discov 4 5 2014 527 537 24743138 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-13-1005

43 Turner JG Dawson J Sullivan DM Nuclear export of proteins and drug resistance in cancer Biochem Pharmacol 83 8 2012 1021 1032 22209898 10.1016/j.bcp.2011.12.016 PMC4521586

44 Wang M Huang H Wang L Xiao H XPO1 inhibitor triggers autophagy of TP53-mutated Burkitt's lymphoma cells Blood 142 suppl 1 2023 6120

45 Theodoropoulos N Lancman G Chari A Targeting nuclear export proteins in multiple myeloma therapy Target Oncol 15 6 2020 697 708 33074469 10.1007/s11523-020-00758-2 PMC7570401

46 Azmi AS Mohammad RM Targeting cancer at the nuclear pore J Clin Oncol 34 34 2016 4180 4182 27863200 10.1200/JCO.2016.67.5637

47 Hutten S Kehlenbach RH CRM1-mediated nuclear export: to the pore and beyond Trends Cell Biol 17 4 2007 193 201 17317185 10.1016/j.tcb.2007.02.003

48 Cavazza T Vernos I The RanGTP pathway: from nucleo-cytoplasmic transport to spindle assembly and beyond Front Cell Dev Biol 3 2015 82 26793706 10.3389/fcell.2015.00082 PMC4707252

49 Azmi AS Uddin MH Mohammad RM The nuclear export protein XPO1 — from biology to targeted therapy Nat Rev Clin Oncol 18 3 2021 152 169 33173198 10.1038/s41571-020-00442-4

50 Gravina GL Senapedis W McCauley D Baloglu E Shacham S Festuccia C Nucleo-cytoplasmic transport as a therapeutic target of cancer J Hematol Oncol 7 2014 85 25476752 10.1186/s13045-014-0085-1 PMC4272779

51 Kojima K Kornblau SM Ruvolo V Prognostic impact and targeting of CRM1 in acute myeloid leukemia Blood 121 20 2013 4166 4174 23564911 10.1182/blood-2012-08-447581 PMC3656451

52 Schmidt J Braggio E Kortuem KM Genome-wide studies in multiple myeloma identify XPO1/CRM1 as a critical target validated using the selective nuclear export inhibitor KPT-276 Leukemia 27 12 2013 2357 2365 23752175 10.1038/leu.2013.172 PMC3922416

53 Huang WY Yue L Qiu WS Wang LW Zhou XH Sun YJ Prognostic value of CRM1 in pancreas cancer Clin Invest Med 32 6 2009 E315 20003838

54 Fu SC Huang HC Horton P Juan HF ValidNESs: a database of validated leucine-rich nuclear export signals Nucleic Acids Res 41 D1 2013 D338 D343 23093589 10.1093/nar/gks936 PMC3531083

55 Mahipal A Malafa M Importins and exportins as therapeutic targets in cancer Pharmacol Ther 164 2016 135 143 27113410 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2016.03.020

56 Parikh K Cang S Sekhri A Liu D Selective inhibitors of nuclear export (SINE)--a novel class of anti-cancer agents J Hematol Oncol 7 2014 78 25316614 10.1186/s13045-014-0078-0 PMC4200201

57 Senapedis WT Baloglu E Landesman Y Clinical translation of nuclear export inhibitors in cancer Semin Cancer Biol 27 2014 74 86 24755012 10.1016/j.semcancer.2014.04.005

58 Forbes DJ Travesa A Nord MS Bernis C Nuclear transport factors: global regulation of mitosis Curr Opin Cell Biol 35 2015 78 90 25982429 10.1016/j.ceb.2015.04.012 PMC4529785

59 Das A Wei G Parikh K Liu D Selective inhibitors of nuclear export (SINE) in hematological malignancies Exp Hematol Oncol 4 2015 7 25745591 10.1186/s40164-015-0002-5 PMC4350974

60 Tai YT Landesman Y Acharya C CRM1 inhibition induces tumor cell cytotoxicity and impairs osteoclastogenesis in multiple myeloma: molecular mechanisms and therapeutic implications Leukemia 28 1 2014 155 165 23588715 10.1038/leu.2013.115 PMC3883926

61 Gravina GL Mancini A Sanita P KPT-330, a potent and selective exportin-1 (XPO-1) inhibitor, shows antitumor effects modulating the expression of cyclin D1 and survivin in prostate cancer models BMC Cancer 15 2015 941 26620414 10.1186/s12885-015-1936-z PMC4666032

62 Marcus JM Burke RT DeSisto JA Landesman Y Orth JD Longitudinal tracking of single live cancer cells to understand cell cycle effects of the nuclear export inhibitor, selinexor Sci Rep 5 2015 14391 10.1038/srep14391 PMC4585873 26399741

63 Tan M Wettersten HI Chu K Novel inhibitors of nuclear transport cause cell cycle arrest and decrease cyst growth in ADPKD associated with decreased CDK4 levels Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 307 11 2014 F1179 F1186 25234309 10.1152/ajprenal.00406.2014 PMC4254973

64 Kashyap T Argueta C Aboukameel A Selinexor, a selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE) compound, acts through NF-κB deactivation and combines with proteasome inhibitors to synergistically induce tumor cell death Oncotarget 7 48 2016 78883 78895 27713151 10.18632/oncotarget.12428 PMC5346685

65 Crochiere M Senapedis W Trinayan K The selective inhibitor of nuclear export compound, selinexor, inhibits NF-κB and induces anti-non-small cell lung cancer activity regardless of p53 status Int J Cancer Res Mol Mech 2 2 2016 1 11

66 Turner JG Kashyap T Dawson JL XPO1 inhibitor combination therapy with bortezomib or carfilzomib induces nuclear localization of IκBα and overcomes acquired proteasome inhibitor resistance in human multiple myeloma Oncotarget 7 48 2016 78896 78909 27806331 10.18632/oncotarget.12969 PMC5340237

67 Nair JS Musi E Schwartz GK Selinexor (KPT-330) induces tumor suppression through nuclear sequestration of IκB and downregulation of survivin Clin Cancer Res 23 15 2017 4301 4311 28314790 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-2632

68 DeSisto JA Flannery P Lemma R Exportin 1 inhibition induces nerve growth factor receptor expression to inhibit the NF-κB pathway in preclinical models of pediatric high-grade glioma Mol Cancer Ther 19 2 2020 540 551 31594826 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-18-1319 PMC7007851

69 Khorashad JS Eiring AM Mason CC shRNA library screening identifies nucleocytoplasmic transport as a mediator of BCR-ABL1 kinase-independent resistance Blood 125 11 2015 1772 1781 25573989 10.1182/blood-2014-08-588855 PMC4357584

70 Walker CJ Oaks JJ Santhanam R Preclinical and clinical efficacy of XPO1/CRM1 inhibition by the karyopherin inhibitor KPT-330 in Ph+ leukemias Blood 122 17 2013 3034 3044 23970380 10.1182/blood-2013-04-495374 PMC3811176

71 Garg M Kanojia D Mayakonda A Molecular mechanism and therapeutic implications of selinexor (KPT-330) in liposarcoma Oncotarget 8 5 2017 7521 7532 27893412 10.18632/oncotarget.13485 PMC5352339

72 Cheng Y Holloway MP Nguyen K XPO1 (CRM1) inhibition represses STAT3 activation to drive a survivin-dependent oncogenic switch in triple-negative breast cancer Mol Cancer Ther 13 3 2014 675 686 24431073 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-13-0416 PMC3954411

73 Zhong Y El-Gamal D Dubovsky JA Selinexor suppresses downstream effectors of B-cell activation, proliferation and migration in chronic lymphocytic leukemia cells Leukemia 28 5 2014 1158 1163 24413321 10.1038/leu.2014.9 PMC4013224

74 Argueta C Kashyap T Klebanov B Selinexor synergizes with dexamethasone to repress mTORC1 signaling and induce multiple myeloma cell death Oncotarget 9 39 2018 25529 25544 29876006 10.18632/oncotarget.25368 PMC5986633

75 Muqbil I Aboukameel A Elloul S Anti-tumor activity of selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE) compounds, is enhanced in non-Hodgkin lymphoma through combination with mTOR inhibitor and dexamethasone Cancer Lett 383 2 2016 309 317 27693556 10.1016/j.canlet.2016.09.016 PMC5584550

76 Fischer MA Friedlander SY Arrate MP Venetoclax response is enhanced by selective inhibitor of nuclear export compounds in hematologic malignancies Blood Adv 4 3 2020 586 598 32045477 10.1182/bloodadvances.2019000359 PMC7013257

77 Chari A Vogl DT Gavriatopoulou M Oral selinexor–dexamethasone for triple-class refractory multiple myeloma N Engl J Med 381 8 2019 727 738 31433920 10.1056/NEJMoa1903455

78 Grosicki S Simonova M Spicka I Once-per-week selinexor, bortezomib, and dexamethasone versus twice-per-week bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with multiple myeloma (BOSTON): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial Lancet 396 10262 2020 1563 1573 33189178 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32292-3

79 Richard S Jagannath S Targeting nuclear export proteins in multiple myeloma therapy BioDrugs 36 1 2022 13 25 35113384 10.1007/s40259-021-00514-6

80 Gill SK Biran N Phull P Vesole DH Siegel DS Parmar H Sequential administration of selinexor and CAR-T therapy in relapsed/ refractory multiple myeloma Blood 142 suppl 1 2023 6930

81 Kalakonda N Maerevoet M Cavallo F Selinexor in patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (SADAL): a single-arm, multinational, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial Lancet Haematol 7 7 2020 e511 e522 32589977 10.1016/S2352-3026(20)30120-4

82 Seymour EK Khan HY Li Y Selinexor in combination with R-CHOP for frontline treatment of non-Hodgkin lymphoma: results of a phase I study Clin Cancer Res 27 12 2021 3307 3316 33785483 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-4929 PMC8197746

83 Yang L Chen F Liang H Selinexor in combination with venetoclax and azacitidine for newly diagnosed (ND) unfit acute myeloid leukemia (AML): a multicenter, open-label prospective study Blood 142 suppl 1 2023 55

84 Ma L Yang W Zhou X Safety and efficacy of selinexor sequential azacytidine in newly diagnosed patients with myelodysplastic syndromes EB1 or EB2: a single-center, single-arm, phase Ib/II trial Blood 142 suppl 1 2023 1856

85 Stephens DM Huang Y Ruppert AS Selinexor combined with ibrutinib demonstrates tolerability and safety in advanced b-cell malignancies: a phase I study Clin Cancer Res 28 15 2022 3242 3247 35608822 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-3867 PMC9364840

86 Lassman AB Wen PY van den Bent MJ A phase II study of the efficacy and safety of oral selinexor in recurrent glioblastoma Clin Cancer Res 28 3 2022 452 460 34728525 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-2225 PMC8810630

87 Gounder MM Razak AA Somaiah N Selinexor in advanced, metastatic dedifferentiated liposarcoma: a multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial J Clin Oncol 40 22 2022 2479 2490 35394800 10.1200/JCO.21.01829 PMC9467680

88 Azmi AS Khan HY Muqbil I Preclinical assessment with clinical validation of selinexor with gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel for the treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma Clin Cancer Res 26 6 2020 1338 1348 31831564 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-1728 PMC7073299

89 Shafique M Ismail-Khan R Extermann M A phase II trial of selinexor (KPT-330) for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer Oncologist 24 7 2019 887 e416 30996012 10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0231 PMC6656474

90 Wei XX Siegel AP Aggarwal R A phase II trial of selinexor, an oral selective inhibitor of nuclear export compound, in abiraterone- and/or enzalutamide-refractory metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer Oncologist 23 6 2018 656 e664 29487219 10.1634/theoncologist.2017-0624 PMC6067936

91 Nilsson S Stein A Rolfo C Selinexor (KPT-330), an oral selective inhibitor of nuclear export (SINE) compound, in combination with FOLFOX in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) - final results of the phase I trial SENTINEL Curr Cancer Drug Targets 20 10 2020 811 817 32598257 10.2174/1568009620666200628105727

92 Slomovitz BM Perez-Fidalgo JA Hamilton EP Long-term follow up of selinexor maintenance in patients with TP53wt advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer: a pre-specified subgroup analysis from the phase 3 ENGOT-EN5/GOG-3055/SIENDO study J Clin Oncol 41 36 suppl 2023 427956 10.1016/j.ygyno.2024.05.016 PMC12903923 38834399

93 Walker JS Garzon R Lapalombella R Selinexor for advanced hematologic malignancies Leuk Lymphoma 61 10 2020 2335 2350 32536290 10.1080/10428194.2020.1775210

94 Vergote I Perez-Fidalgo JA Hamilton EP SIENDO/ENGOT-EN5/GOG-3055: a randomized phase 3 trial of maintenance elinexor versus placebo after combination platinum-based chemotherapy in advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer J Clin Oncol 39 15 suppl 2021 TPS5610

95 Golan T Shentzer Kutiel T Gottfried M Open-label phase 1/2 study evaluating the tolerability and antitumor activity of selinexor and pembrolizumab in colorectal cancer J Clin Oncol 40 4 suppl 2022 110

96 Glitza IC Patel S Zarifa A 1124P phase Ib study to evaluate the safety of selinexor (SEL) in combination with pembrolizumab (PEM) in patients with advanced malignancies- the: the melanoma experience Ann Oncol 31(4 suppl) 2020 S756

97 Mirza MR Chase DM Slomovitz BM Dostarlimab for primary advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer N Engl J Med 388 23 2023 2145 2158 36972026 10.1056/NEJMoa2216334

98 Eskander RN Sill MW Beffa L Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in advanced endometrial cancer N Engl J Med 388 23 2023 2159 2170 36972022 10.1056/NEJMoa2302312 PMC10351614

99 Gandhi UH Senapedis W Baloglu E Clinical implications of targeting XPO1-mediated nuclear export in multiple myeloma Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 18 5 2018 335 345 29610030 10.1016/j.clml.2018.03.003

100 Machlus KR Wu SK Vijey P Selinexor-induced thrombocytopenia results from inhibition of thrombopoietin signaling in early megakaryopoiesis Blood 130 9 2017 1132 1143 28630120 10.1182/blood-2016-11-752840 PMC5580272

101 Abdul Razak AR Mau-Soerensen M Gabrail NY First-in-class, first-in-human phase I study of selinexor, a selective inhibitor of nuclear export, in patients with advanced solid tumors J Clin Oncol 34 34 2016 4142 4150 26926685 10.1200/JCO.2015.65.3949 PMC5562433

102 Etchin J Berezovskaya A Conway AS KPT-8602, a second-generation inhibitor of XPO1-mediated nuclear export, is well tolerated and highly active against AML blasts and leukemia-initiating cells Leukemia 31 1 2017 143 150 27211268 10.1038/leu.2016.145 PMC5220128

103 Hashmi H Green K The ‘comeback’ of selinexor: from toxic to tolerable Curr Probl Cancer 46 1 2022 100789 10.1016/j.currproblcancer.2021.100789 34479762

104 Yan D Pomicter AD Tantravahi S Nuclear-cytoplasmic transport is a therapeutic target in myelofibrosis Clin Cancer Res 25 7 2019 2323 2335 30563936 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-0959 PMC6445677

105 Maloof MEE Wu S Ellero A Walker CJ Kye S Taverna P Activity of selinexor as a single agent and synergistic activity with approved/investigational myelofibrosis therapies in vitro Blood 142 suppl 1 2023 6353

106 Lu M Xia L Hoffman R Use of combination therapies including the XPO1 inhibitor selinexor in is a potential effective therapeutic strategy to treat myelofibrosis patients Blood 142 suppl 1 2023 1792

107 Tantravahi SK Kim SJ Sundar D A phase 2 study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of selinexor in patients with myelofibrosis refractory or intolerant to JAK inhibitors Blood 138 suppl 1 2021 143

108 Scandura JM Gerds AT Ritchie EK Wang X Kye S Rampal RK A Phase 2 Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Selinexor Monotherapy in Patients with JAK Inhibitor-Naïve Myelofibrosis and Moderate Thrombocytopenia (XPORT-MF-044) Blood 142 suppl 1 2023 3211

109 Tantravahi SK Kishtagari A Maher K Selinexor plus ruxolitinib in JAK inhibitor (JAKi)-naïve patients with myelofibrosis: long term follow up from XPORT-MF-034 suggestive of disease modification Blood 142 suppl 1 2023 622

110 Maher K Rampal RK Bose P A global, phase 3, randomized, double-blind study to evaluate safety and efficacy of selinexor, an XPO-1 inhibitor, in combination with ruxolitinib in JAK inhibitor-naïve myelofibrosis (XPORT-MF-034) Blood 142 suppl 1 2023 3209

Authorship

Contribution: M.M., Z.M.A., J.W., P.V., and J.M. contributed to the literature review, organization/writing, and editing of this manuscript.

For any questions, please contact the corresponding author, John Mascarenhas ( john.mascarenhas@mssm.edu ).