bortezomib
DrugGiven SC or IV
Other names: [(1R)-3-Methyl-1-[[(2S)-1-oxo-3-phenyl-2-[(pyrazinylcarbonyl)amino]propyl]amino]butyl]boronic Acid, LDP 341, MLN341, PS-341, PS341, Velcade
NCT Number: NCT01863550
This randomized phase III trial studies bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone to see how well they work compared to carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in treating patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Bortezomib and carfilzomib may stop the growth of cancer cells by blocking some of the enzymes needed for cell growth. Lenalidomide may help the immune system kill abnormal blood cells or cancer cells. Drugs used in chemotherapy, such as dexamethasone, work in different ways to stop the growth of cancer cells, either by killing the cells, by stopping them from dividing, or by stopping them from spreading. It is not yet known whether bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone are more or less effective than carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in treating patients with multiple myeloma
This study is active but is not currently recruiting participants.
Notify Me18 year and older
All sexes
Interventional
Phase 3
Advance Oncology Center, Aguadilla, Puerto Rico
PRIMARY OBJECTIVES:
I. To compare the overall survival between two strategies of lenalidomide maintenance following induction with a proteasome inhibitor? immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) combination: limited duration of maintenance (24 months) versus indefinite maintenance therapy until disease progression.
II. To compare progression-free survival between bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) and carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (CRd) induction followed by lenalidomide maintenance in patients with newly diagnosed symptomatic multiple myeloma.
SECONDARY OBJECTIVES:
I. To compare the progression-free survival between two strategies of lenalidomide maintenance following induction with a proteasome inhibitor?IMiD combination: limited duration of maintenance (24 months) or indefinite maintenance therapy until disease progression.
II. To compare induction rates of response between VRd and CRd arms. III. To evaluate time to progression, duration of response and overall survival between VRd and CRd induction therapy.
IV. To compare induction rates of toxicity between VRd and CRd arms. V. To evaluate toxicity during lenalidomide maintenance. VI. To compare minimal residual disease (MRD) negative rates between VRd and CRd arms at end of induction therapy.
TERTIARY OBJECTIVES:
I. To compare the short and long-term health-related quality of life impact between the two strategies of lenalidomide maintenance.
II. To compare the impact on health-related quality of life between VRd and CRd induction therapy.
III. To evaluate the association between early induction response and change in health-related quality of life.
IV. To describe changes in health-related quality of life during the induction, active maintenance and observation phases.
V. To evaluate correlation between treatment adherence during maintenance and health-related quality of life.
VI. To compare MRD negative rates between the two strategies of lenalidomide maintenance.
VII. To compare MRD negative rates between VRd and CRd arms during induction therapy.
VIII. To examine patterns of change in MRD levels over time and examine conversion from detectable to MRD negative status.
IX. To evaluate agreement and association between International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) and MRD based disease-free status.
X. To describe the mutational profile of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. XI. To identify mutations associated with resistance to VRd and CRd induction therapy.
XI. To identify expression profiles associated with MRD negative status with each induction therapy.
XII. To determine the ability of MRD status at induction end to predict short-term and long-term overall and progression-free survival.
XIII. To determine the effects of tobacco, operationalized as combustible tobacco (1a), other forms of tobacco (1b), and environmental tobacco exposure (ETS) (1c) on provider-reported cancer-treatment toxicity (adverse events [both clinical and hematologic] and dose modifications).
XIV. To determine the effects of tobacco on patient-reported physical symptoms and psychological symptoms.
XV. To examine quitting behaviors and behavioral counseling/support and cessation medication utilization.
XVI. To explore the effect of tobacco use and exposure on treatment duration, relative dose intensity, and therapeutic benefit.
OUTLINE:
INDUCTION: Patients are randomized to 1 of 2 treatment arms.
ARM A: Patients receive bortezomib subcutaneously (SC) or intravenously (IV) on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 of courses 1-8 and days 1 and 8 of courses 9-12; lenalidomide orally (PO) daily on days 1-14; and dexamethasone PO daily on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12 of courses 1-8 and days 1, 2, 8, and 9 of courses 9-12. Treatment repeats every 3 weeks for 12 courses in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
ARM B: Patients receive carfilzomib IV over 30 minutes on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16; lenalidomide PO daily on days 1-21; and dexamethasone PO on days 1, 8, 15, and 22. Treatment repeats every 4 weeks for 9 courses in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
MAINTENANCE: After completion of induction therapy (or completion of at least 6 courses in Arm A but stopped early due to unacceptable toxicity, or at least 4 courses in Arm B but stopped early due to unacceptable toxicity), patients are then randomized to 1 of 2 maintenance treatment arms.
ARM C: Patients receive lenalidomide PO daily on days 1-21. Treatment repeats every 4 weeks for 24 courses in the absences of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
ARM D: Patients receive lenalidomide PO daily on days 1-21. Courses repeat every 4 weeks in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
After completion of study treatment, patients are followed up every 3 months for 2 years, every 6 months for 3 years, and then annually for 10 years.
Healthy volunteers accepted: No
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Given SC or IV
Other names: [(1R)-3-Methyl-1-[[(2S)-1-oxo-3-phenyl-2-[(pyrazinylcarbonyl)amino]propyl]amino]butyl]boronic Acid, LDP 341, MLN341, PS-341, PS341, Velcade
Given IV
Other names: Kyprolis, PR-171
Given PO
Other names: Aacidexam, Adexone, Aknichthol Dexa, Alba-Dex, Alin, Alin Depot, Alin Oftalmico, Amplidermis, Anemul mono, Auricularum, Auxiloson, Baycuten, Baycuten N, Cortidexason, Cortisumman, Decacort, Decadrol, Decadron, Decalix, Decameth, Decasone R.p., Dectancyl, Dekacort, Deltafluorene, Deronil, Desamethasone, Desameton, Dexa-Mamallet, Dexa-Rhinosan, Dexa-Scheroson, Dexa-sine, Dexacortal, Dexacortin, Dexafarma, Dexafluorene, Dexalocal, Dexamecortin, Dexameth, Dexamethasonum, Dexamonozon, Dexapos, Dexinoral, Dexone, Dinormon, Fluorodelta, Fortecortin, Gammacorten, Hexadecadrol, Hexadrol, Lokalison-F, Loverine, Methylfluorprednisolone, Millicorten, Mymethasone, Orgadrone, Spersadex, Visumetazone
Optional correlative studies
Given PO
Other names: CC-5013, CC5013, CDC 501, Revlimid
Ancillary studies
Other names: Quality of Life Assessment
Time frame: From the maintenance randomization to death due to any cause or, censored at the date last known alive, assessed up to 15 years
The Kaplan-Meier (KM) method will be used to describe the overall survival function by arm. Sensitivity analysis will be done to evaluate OS in the subset of eligible patients and censoring patients at time of non-protocol therapy.
Time frame: From the induction randomization until the earlier of progression or death due to any cause, assessed up to 15 years
The Kaplan-Meier method will be used to describe the progression-free survival function by arm using all data while ignoring maintenance.
Time frame: From the maintenance randomization until the earlier of progression or death due to any cause, assessed up to 15 years
Weighted Cox regression will be used.
Time frame: From induction randomization to death due to any cause, or censored at the date last known alive, assessed up to 15 years
The KM method will be used.
Time frame: At 2.8 months
Will be compared between induction arms using Fisher?s exact test.
Time frame: At 8.3 months
Will be compared between induction arms using Fisher?s exact test.
Time frame: From the induction randomization to progression, or censored at the date of last disease evaluation for those without progression reported, assessed up to 15 years
TTP distributions will be estimated by induction arm using Kaplan-Meier methods.
Time frame: From first objective response (partial response or better) since induction randomization until the earlier of progression or death due to any cause, or censored at date of last disease evaluation for those without events reported, assessed up to 15 years
Duration of response will be estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods in the subset of patients achieving partial response or better while on induction therapy.
Time frame: Up to 15 years
Fisher?s exact test will be used.
Time frame: Up to 36 weeks
Fisher?s exact test will be used.
Time frame: At 8.3 months after induction randomization
MRD evaluation by multiparametric flow cytometry will be conducted and patients classified as MRD negative, MRD positive or not evaluable. At each time point, MRD negative rates with two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals on each arm will be estimated. Patterns of change over time in MRD will also be evaluated using longitudinal regression analysis with general linear mixed effects models and GEE semi-parametric models. MRD negative rates will be compared between either induction or maintenance arms depending on the assessment time point using the Mantel-Haenszel test stratified either on intent to transplant at progression or induction arm (Step 1 and 2 stratification factors, respectively).
Time frame: From week 36 (the end) of induction therapy to week 24 (end of course 6) of maintenance therapy
Will be analyzed using linear mixed models.
Time frame: From the end of 2 years of maintenance to 3 years post maintenance randomization
Will be analyzed using linear mixed models.
Time frame: From the end of 2 years of maintenance to 5 years post maintenance randomization
Will be analyzed using linear mixed models.
Time frame: From baseline (induction randomization) to 36 weeks (end) of induction therapy
Will be analyzed using linear mixed models.
Time frame: From baseline (induction randomization) to 2.8 months of induction therapy
Will be analyzed using linear mixed models.
Time frame: Up to 15 years
Will be analyzed using linear mixed models.
Time frame: From the baseline assessment at induction randomization to a decrease of 7 points, assessed up to 15 years
Will be analyzed with KM methods and Cox regression.
Time frame: From the baseline assessment at maintenance randomization to a decrease of 4 points, assessed up to 15 years
Will be analyzed with KM methods and Cox regression.
Time frame: At 2.8 months after induction randomization
MRD evaluation by multiparametric flow cytometry will be conducted and patients classified as MRD negative, MRD positive or not evaluable. At each time point, MRD negative rates with two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals on each arm will be estimated. Patterns of change over time in MRD will also be evaluated using longitudinal regression analysis with general linear mixed effects models and GEE semi-parametric models. MRD negative rates will be compared between either induction or maintenance arms depending on the assessment time point using the Mantel-Haenszel test stratified either on intent to transplant at progression or induction arm (Step 1 and 2 stratification factors, respectively).
Time frame: At 2 years after maintenance randomization
MRD evaluation by multiparametric flow cytometry will be conducted and patients classified as MRD negative, MRD positive or not evaluable. At each time point, MRD negative rates with two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals on each arm will be estimated. Patterns of change over time in MRD will also be evaluated using longitudinal regression analysis with general linear mixed effects models and GEE semi-parametric models. MRD negative rates will be compared between either induction or maintenance arms depending on the assessment time point using the Mantel-Haenszel test stratified either on intent to transplant at progression or induction arm (Step 1 and 2 stratification factors, respectively).
Time frame: At 3 years after maintenance randomization
MRD evaluation by multiparametric flow cytometry will be conducted and patients classified as MRD negative, MRD positive or not evaluable. At each time point, MRD negative rates with two-sided 95% exact confidence intervals on each arm will be estimated. Patterns of change over time in MRD will also be evaluated using longitudinal regression analysis with general linear mixed effects models and GEE semi-parametric models. MRD negative rates will be compared between either induction or maintenance arms depending on the assessment time point using the Mantel-Haenszel test stratified either on intent to transplant at progression or induction arm (Step 1 and 2 stratification factors, respectively).
Time frame: Baseline up to 15 years
Descriptive statistics (absolute frequencies, percentages, mean, standard deviation [SD], median, range) will be used to characterize the study cohort by mutation incidence and expression levels at all time-points.
Time frame: Baseline up to 15 years
Descriptive statistics (absolute frequencies, percentages, mean, SD, median, range) will be used to characterize the study cohort by mutation incidence and expression levels at all time-points. Association of genotype data (binary) with categorical baseline patient and disease characteristics will be evaluated using chi-squared test or, if appropriate, Cochran-Armitage trend test. The Wilcoxon-rank sum test or, if appropriate, the Jonckheere-Terpstra test for trend will be used to assess differential expression levels with baseline patient and disease characteristic groups. The Kaplan-Meier method will be used to estimate progression-free and overall survival distributions and Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios by genotype status.
Time frame: Up to 15 years
With samples submitted pre-registration, multiparametric flow cytometry will quantify circulating plasma cells (cPC) in terms of number of clonal events/150,000 collected total events and plasma cell proliferation in terms of the plasma cell labeling index (PCLI) percentage. The Kaplan-Meier method will be used to estimate induction progression-free survival and overall survival distributions and Cox regression used to estimate hazard ratios by dichotomized cPC and PCLI.
ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group
Network
Randomized Phase III Trial of Bortezomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone (VRd) Versus Carfilzomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone (CRd) Followed by Limited or Indefinite Duration Lenalidomide Maintenance in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Symptomatic Multiple Myeloma (ENDURANCE)
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT02538198
Blood Protein Disorders, Cardiovascular Diseases
Basking Ridge, New Jersey, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT03622788
Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia, Acute Myeloid Leukemia
Houston, Texas, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT02334865
Blood Protein Disorders, Cardiovascular Diseases
Buffalo, New York, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT05669989
Blood Protein Disorders, Cardiovascular Diseases
St Louis, Missouri, United States
View Trial Details