Which diseases are currently treated or targeted by karylef clinical trials?
Executive summary
Karyopharm’s clinical programs, centered on the selective inhibitor of nuclear export selinexor (XPOVIO) and related agents, are targeting a spectrum of hematologic malignancies and solid tumors—most prominently multiple myeloma and myelofibrosis—while also advancing trials in diffuse large B‑cell lymphoma, endometrial cancer and other relapsed/refractory blood cancers and solid tumor settings [1] [2]. Public disclosures and trial listings likewise show multiple combination studies focused on relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma and ongoing mid‑ to late‑stage oncology trials, though company statements are forward‑looking and enrollment/completion status varies by study [3] [4].
1. Multiple myeloma: the anchor of Karyopharm’s clinical work
Multiple myeloma appears as the most consistently represented disease in Karyopharm’s pipeline, with multiple combination trials—such as selinexor paired with pomalidomide and dexamethasone in STOMP and XPORT trials—and a formal collaboration to test mezigdomide plus selinexor for relapsed/refractory disease after T‑cell therapies [4] [5] [3]. Company materials and press releases emphasize objective response, progression‑free survival and T‑cell biology endpoints in these trials, reflecting a strategic push to position selinexor‑based regimens in later lines of myeloma care [3] [5].
2. Myelofibrosis: late‑stage testing and a headline trial
Karyopharm has moved selinexor into a Phase 3 program for myelofibrosis—most notably the SENTRY trial, whose enrollment completion was publicly announced—where the drug is being tested in combination with ruxolitinib versus ruxolitinib alone and where symptom and spleen volume endpoints are central to the protocol [2] [6] [5]. Company commentary frames SENTRY and related studies as pivotal for establishing selinexor’s role in a disease with high unmet need, but press releases stress these are forward‑looking program goals that depend on ongoing data [2].
3. Diffuse large B‑cell lymphoma and other hematologic malignancies
Karyopharm lists diffuse large B‑cell lymphoma (DLBCL) among indications under study, including a Phase 2/3 study referenced on its trial pages, indicating intent to explore selinexor’s activity in aggressive B‑cell lymphomas [4]. The company’s broader pipeline language also highlights other hematologic neoplasms—such as higher‑risk relapsed/refractory myelodysplastic neoplasms studied with eltanexor—underscoring an emphasis on blood cancers beyond myeloma and myelofibrosis [6].
4. Endometrial cancer and solid‑tumor explorations
Selinexor is being investigated in solid tumors as well, with endometrial cancer explicitly named in investor and press materials as a mid‑ or late‑stage target for the agent [2] [1]. Company descriptions of their pipeline reiterate a portfolio that spans both hematologic and solid tumors, though specific solid‑tumor trial identifiers and published results are less prominent in the provided reporting than the hematology trials [1].
5. Combination strategies and collaboration‑driven indications
A recurring theme in Karyopharm’s reporting is development of selinexor in combination regimens—with pomalidomide/dexamethasone, with next‑generation CELMoD agents like mezigdomide, and alongside standard‑of‑care targeted therapies—aimed chiefly at relapsed/refractory myeloma and other resistant cancers [3] [5]. These collaborations, including one with Bristol‑Myers Squibb, reflect both scientific rationale (potential to spare T‑cell function) and commercial strategy to broaden indications through partner co‑development [3].
6. What’s clear, and what remains uncertain
Public documents and trial registries clearly show Karyopharm targeting multiple myeloma, myelofibrosis, DLBCL, endometrial cancer and other hematologic and solid tumors with selinexor and next‑generation SINE compounds [4] [2] [1]. At the same time, numerous company statements are forward‑looking and contingent on trial outcomes, and the provided sources do not constitute an exhaustive catalog of every active or planned trial—so the full universe of targeted diseases may be broader than reflected here, and regulatory or enrollment outcomes will ultimately determine approved indications [2] [4].