ArticleTherapeutic advances in hematology2025
An evaluation of selinexor's clinical trial portfolio: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Therapeutic advances in hematology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Targeting the nuclear export receptor exportin-1 in acute myeloid leukaemia: From biology to clinical translation.Clinical and translational medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cancer drug development is a complex and costly process. Selinexor is a drug that received accelerated approval as a new treatment for relapsed or refractory diffuse-large B-cell lymphoma and multiple myeloma. Despite initially showing promise in treating these conditions, it has shown high-grade toxicity in clinical trials. Hence, an analysis is needed to assess the clinical trial portfolio of selinexor. Objectives: This investigation aims to evaluate published clinical trials of selinexor to assess its risk/benefit in terms of response and survival outcomes as well as its toxicity. Design: Cross-sectional. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional investigation by searching databases for published clinical trials that used a response criteria pertaining to selinexor administration in adults. In a masked, duplicate manner, we extracted trial characteristics, median progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rates (ORR), and Grade 3-5 adverse events (AEs). Results: Of the 753 articles identified, 40 were included in our final sample. The trials reporting PFS data using control arms showed a median difference in PFS by 4.4 months, favoring the selinexor treatment arm. However, trials that reported OS data with control arms indicated that selinexor showed a worse median difference in OS (-2.4 months) than the control arms. Among the 53 measurements reporting ORR, the weighted median ORR was 36.4%, and the median difference ORR (4.8%) favored selinexor. Additionally, 4153 cumulative Grade 3-5 AEs were reported. Conclusion: In comparison to a control arm, selinexor increases PFS and induces response, suggesting drug activity. However, acceptable Grade 3-5 AEs or improvement of OS was not seen across a single indication, suggesting a poor pretest probability. Our risk/benefit analysis of selinexor provides valuable insight into the unfavorable outcomes of the drug and increased high-grade AEs. Hence, further testing of selinexor should be carefully scrutinized and contextualized with the portfolio of data we present.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.