This randomized phase II/III trial studies how well lenalidomide works and compares it to observation in treating patients with asymptomatic high-risk asymptomatic (smoldering) multiple myeloma. Biological therapies such as lenalidomide, may stimulate the immune system in different ways and stop cancer cells from growing. Sometimes the cancer may not need treatment until it progresses. In this case, observation may be sufficient. It is not yet known whether lenalidomide is effective in treating patients with high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma than observation alone.
Randomized Phase III Trial of Lenalidomide Versus Observation Alone in Patients With Asymptomatic High-Risk Smoldering Multiple Myeloma
I. To study the risk of grade 3 adverse events that effect vital organ function (such as cardiac, hepatic or thromboembolic) or any grade 4 or higher non-hematologic adverse events among patients receiving lenalidomide as treatment for high-risk asymptomatic, smoldering multiple myeloma. (Phase II) II. To compare progression free survival where failure is defined as death or the development of symptomatic myeloma indicating treatment between patients receiving lenalidomide versus observation alone in high-risk asymptomatic, smoldering multiple myeloma. (Phase III)
I. To assess the response to therapy of patients treated with lenalidomide as treatment for asymptomatic, smoldering multiple myeloma. (Phase II) II. To determine and compare the response rate, time to progression, 1-year progression-free survival probability, and overall survival between patients randomized to receive lenalidomide or observation in the setting of asymptomatic myeloma. (Phase III) III. To estimate the incidence of adverse events in patients receiving lenalidomide therapy for early-stage multiple myeloma. (Phase III)
I. To describe the cohort in terms of gene expression profiling (GEP) and cytogenetic risk classification and evaluate baseline immune and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) parameters. (Phase II) II. To evaluate the impact of therapy within GEP-defined risk groups and GEP as a prognostic marker. (Phase III) III. To study the effects of lenalidomide on laboratory markers of immune function. (Phase III) IV. To study the prognostic value of MRI-detected asymptomatic bone disease on clinical outcome. (Phase III) V. To evaluate the prognostic effect of baseline high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities on clinical outcome. (Phase III)
I. To compare quality of life (QOL) change between treatment and observation arms based on the functional (FWB) and physical (PWB) well-being components of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT)-General (G) patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure from registration (prior to initiation of treatment) up to cycle 24.
II. To examine the impact of differential treatment response (PFS), if observed, on QOL based on the FACT FWB+PWB up to cycle 48.
III. To obtain prospective data on myeloma specific QOL attributes, utilizing and evaluating the Multiple Myeloma Subscale (MMS).
PHASE II: Patients receive lenalidomide orally (PO) once daily (QD) on days 1-21. Courses repeat every 28 days in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
PHASE III: Patients are randomized to 1 of 2 treatment arms.
ARM A: Patients receive lenalidomide PO QD on days 1-21. Courses repeat every 28 days in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
ARM B: Patients undergo observation until progression to symptomatic myeloma.
After completion of study treatment, patients are followed up every 3 months for 2 years, every 6 months for 3 years, and then every 12 months for 5 years.
Light Chain Deposition Disease Smoldering Plasma Cell Myeloma Lenalidomide Thalidomide
For people ages 18 years and up
Patients must have no lytic lesions on skeletal surveys and no hypercalcemia (i.e.,
= 11 mg/dL)
© The Regents of the University of California