ReviewFrontiers in oncology2025
Lower dose and weekly schedules of selinexor in multiple myeloma - updated evidence on safety and efficacy.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Benefit of selinexor dose reduction on outcomes with selinexor, bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with lenalidomide-refractory multiple myeloma: Subgroup analysis of the BOSTON trial.British journal of haematology · 2026Trial
- Adjusted delivery, stronger outcomes: Selinexor therapeutic adaptation and positioning in previously treated multiple myeloma.British journal of haematology · 2026Article
- Selinexor plus ruxolitinib in JAK inhibitor-naïve patients with myelofibrosis: a multicenter, open-label, phase 1 study.Blood advances · 2026Article
- Efficacy analysis and adverse event management of selinexor in the treatment of relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.Frontiers in 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Selinexor, a first-in-class, oral exportin-1 inhibitor, showed activity in penta-refractory multiple myeloma (MM) in early trial exploration; however, the side-effect profile of twice-weekly dosing led to hesitant incorporation into widespread practice. Here, our objective is to provide updated clinical evidence highlighting the preserved efficacy and improved tolerability of once-weekly selinexor at lower doses in patients with previously treated MM compared to twice-weekly regimens. Methods: Patient-level data from the BOSTON, STOMP, STORM, and XPORT-MM-028 clinical trials were systematically evaluated to elucidate relationships between selinexor dosing schedule, regimen toxicities, and efficacy in patients with MM that had progressed after at least one prior therapy. Results: Updated results on once-weekly selinexor in combination with other anti-MM agents showed a reduced adverse event profile and improved tolerability compared with twice-weekly selinexor regimens, without compromise in efficacy. Furthermore, new data from several regimens with weekly selinexor delivery suggest that patients who had selinexor dose reductions or were treated in cohorts with a lower selinexor starting dose had reduced rates of adverse events, and superior durations of response. Weekly selinexor in combination with pomalidomide or carfilzomib in particular showed efficacy in difficult-to-treat, multiclass relapsed/refractory MM, including MM refractory to prior BCMA-directed therapies. Conclusions: In a rapidly evolving field of previously treated MM, lowering of selinexor dose and frequency into weekly regimens showed a more feasible and tolerable treatment with continued efficacy when compared to twice-weekly schedules, paving the path for effective management of multiclass refractory MM, including patients with very advanced disease.
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.