Daratumumab
BiologicalGiven IV
Other names: Anti-CD38 Monoclonal Antibody, Darzalex, HuMax-CD38, JNJ-54767414
NCT Number: NCT03937635
This phase III trial studies how well lenalidomide and dexamethasone works with or without daratumumab in treating patients with high-risk smoldering myeloma. Drugs used in chemotherapy, such as lenalidomide and dexamethasone, work in different ways to stop the growth of tumor cells, either by killing the cells, by stopping them from dividing, or by stopping them from spreading. Immunotherapy with monoclonal antibodies, such as daratumumab, may induce changes in the body's immune system and may interfere with the ability of tumor cells to grow and spread. Giving lenalidomide and dexamethasone with daratumumab may work better in treating patients with smoldering myeloma.
Interested in participating?
Request Info18 year and older
All sexes
Interventional
Phase 3
Cancer Center-Metro Medical Center Bayamon, Bayamón, Puerto Rico
PRIMARY OBJECTIVES:
I. To compare overall survival in patients with high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma randomized to daratumumab-lenalidomide (revlimid)-dexamethasone or revlimid-dexamethasone.
SECONDARY OBJECTIVES:
I. To compare progression-free survival and response rates between arms. II. To evaluate safety and compare toxicity rates between arms. III. To monitor incidence of infusion-related reactions over the first cycle of daratumumab.
IV. To evaluate stem cell mobilization failure and early stem cell mobilization feasibility.
EXPLORATORY OBJECTIVES:
I. To measure treatment exposure and adherence. II. To estimate treatment duration and time to progression.
PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES OBJECTIVES:
I. To compare change in health-related quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy [FACT]- General [G]]) from baseline to end of study therapy between arms.
II. To compare change in FACT-G scores from treatment end to 6-months post-treatment end between arms.
III. To describe changes in FACT-G scores over study therapy and shortly after treatment discontinuation and evaluate correlation with survival.
IV. To evaluate attributes of select patient reported treatment-emergent symptomatic adverse events (Patient Reported Outcomes [PRO]-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [CTCAE]) longitudinally.
V. To derive an overall PRO-CTCAE score at each assessment time point. VI. To measure the likelihood of medication adherence (ASK-12) at 6 month intervals throughout treatment.
VII. To assess the association of overall PRO-CTCAE score with FACT-G score. VIII. To compare select PRO-CTCAE items and related provider-reported CTCAEs. IX. To evaluate association between treatment adherence and Adherence Starts with Knowledge 12 (ASK-12) score.
X. To assess correlation of treatment adherence and ASK-12 score with FACT-G score.
XI. To tabulate PRO compliance and completion rates.
LABORATORY OBJECTIVES:
I. To compare minimal residual disease negative rate after 12 cycles of study therapy between arms.
II. To compare minimal residual disease (MRD) positive to negative conversion rates from 12 cycles to end of treatment between arms.
III. To examine patterns of change in minimal residual disease levels during study therapy.
IV. To evaluate agreement and discordance between methods determining disease-free status.
V. To assess the prognostic value of minimal residual disease status at 12 cycles for overall and progression-free survival.
IMAGING OBJECTIVES:
I. To evaluate the association of baseline fludeoxyglucose F-18 (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) imaging with progression-free survival.
II. To assess the ability of baseline FDG-PET/CT to predict minimal residual disease status after 12 cycles of study therapy and at the end of study therapy.
III. To describe the results of subsequent FDG-PET/CT imaging studies in the subset of patients with baseline abnormal FDG-PET/CT, and to associate these results with progression-free survival (PFS).
OUTLINE: Patients are randomized to 1 of 2 arms.
ARM I: Patients receive daratumumab intravenously (IV) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of courses 1-2, days 1 and 15 of courses 3-6, and day 1 of courses 7-24. Patients also receive lenalidomide orally (PO) daily on days 1-21 and dexamethasone PO on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 in courses 1-12. Treatment repeats every 28 days for up to 24 courses in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
ARM II: Patients receive lenalidomide PO daily on days 1-21 and dexamethasone PO on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of courses 1-12. Treatment repeats every 28 days for up to 24 courses in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
After completion of study, patients will be followed up every 3, 6 or 12 months for up to 15 years from study entry.
Healthy volunteers accepted: No
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Given IV
Other names: Anti-CD38 Monoclonal Antibody, Darzalex, HuMax-CD38, JNJ-54767414
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
Given PO
Other names: CC-5013, CC5013, CDC 501, Revlimid
Ancillary studies
Other names: Quality of Life Assessment
Ancillary studies
Time frame: From randomization to death due to any cause, or censored at date last known alive, assessed up to 15 years
Will be estimated using the Kaplan-Meier (KM) method and compared using a stratified log-rank test. Stratified cox proportional hazards regression will produce a treatment hazard ratio estimate.
Time frame: Baseline to 24 cycles of treatment (each cycle is 28 days)
A general effect size measure of half standard deviation will be used to establish the minimally important difference. Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation [SD], median, range) will be used to evaluate the distribution of levels and changes for the set of health-related quality of life (QOL) evaluations. Levels and changes will also be assessed graphically. Changes from baseline will be analyzed using linear mixed models based on restricted maximum likelihood estimation with covariance matrix maximizing Akaike information criteria. Models with treatment, assessment time, and treatment by assessment time interaction with and without other predictors will be fit. If there is substantial missingness, will analyze the data according to the methods described in Schluchter and Schluchter, Greene and Beck.
Time frame: From randomization until disease progression or death due to any cause, or censored at date of last disease evaluation, assessed up to 15 years
Will be estimated using the KM method and compared using a stratified log-rank test. Stratified cox proportional hazards regression will produce a treatment hazard ratio estimate.
Time frame: At 12 and 24 months
Response will be tabulated by category. Response rates of very good partial response (VGPR) or better and partial response (PR) or better will be compared using the Fisher's exact test. Ineligible patients are excluded from the analysis and unevaluable patients are counted in the denominator.
Time frame: Up to 28 days post-treatment
Will monitor the toxicities experienced by all treated patients. Will compare rates of worst grade 3 or higher non-hematologic treatment-related events using the Fisher's exact test.
Time frame: During cycle 1 of treatment (each cycle is 28 days)
Will monitor the toxicities experienced by all treated patients. Will compare rates of worst grade 3 or higher non-hematologic treatment-related events using the Fisher's exact test.
Time frame: After 4 to 6 cycles of treatment (each cycle is 28 days)
Defined as not collecting a minimum of 5x10^6 CD34 cells per kilogram weight. SC mobilization and type of growth factor support will be summarized overall and by treatment arm with descriptive statistics.
Time frame: Up to 6 cycles of treatment (each cycle is 28 days)
Defined as the proportion of patients less than 65 years of age treated for 6 courses who opt for SC mobilization. SC mobilization and type of growth factor support will be summarized overall and by treatment arm with descriptive statistics.
Time frame: During 4 to 6 cycles of treatment (each cycle is 28 days)
SC mobilization and type of growth factor support will be summarized overall and by treatment arm with descriptive statistics.
Time frame: From treatment end to 6 months post-treatment
A general effect size measure of half standard deviation will be used to establish the minimally important difference. Descriptive statistics (mean, SD, median, range) will be used to evaluate the distribution of levels and changes for the set of health-related QOL evaluations. Levels and changes will also be assessed graphically. Changes from baseline will be analyzed using linear mixed models based on restricted maximum likelihood estimation with covariance matrix maximizing Akaike information criteria. Models with treatment, assessment time, and treatment by assessment time interaction with and without other predictors will be fit. If there is substantial missingness, will analyze the data according to the methods described in Schluchter and Schluchter, Greene and Beck.
Time frame: From baseline, at 3, f7, 13, 19 cycles of treatment, and early discontinuation of treatment, assessed up to 24 cycles of treatment (each cycle is 28 days)
A general effect size measure of half standard deviation will be used to establish the minimally important difference. Descriptive statistics (mean, SD, median, range) will be used to evaluate the distribution of levels and changes for the set of health-related QOL evaluations. Levels and changes will also be assessed graphically. Changes from baseline will be analyzed using linear mixed models based on restricted maximum likelihood estimation with covariance matrix maximizing Akaike information criteria. Models with treatment, assessment time, and treatment by assessment time interaction with and without other predictors will be fit. If there is substantial missingness, will analyze the data according to the methods described in Schluchter and Schluchter, Greene and Beck.
Time frame: From baseline until a decrease of 9 points, or censored at date of last assessment, assessed up to 6 months post-treatment
Will be analyzed with Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox regression with the related treatment arm as the only factor. Correlation between time to worsening of symptoms with PFS and OS will be assessed with Kendall's Tau adjusted for censored observations.
Time frame: Up to 24 months
Cumulative dose will be calculated overall and by cycle. Data will be summarized by treatment arm with descriptive statistics and graphically over time. Patients will be classified into dichotomous groups based on a 75% relative dose intensity cutoff (< 75% versus [vs] >= 75% represents poor vs good treatment adherence). The proportion of patients with poor lenalidomide treatment adherence will be compared between arms using the Fisher's exact test. In addition, multi-variable logistic regression analysis will be conducted to identify the baseline factors associated with calculated good treatment adherence.
Time frame: Up to 24 months
Dose intensity will be calculated overall and by cycle. Data will be summarized by treatment arm with descriptive statistics and graphically over time. Patients will be classified into dichotomous groups based on a 75% relative dose intensity cutoff (< 75% vs >= 75% represents poor vs good treatment adherence). The proportion of patients with poor lenalidomide treatment adherence will be compared between arms using the Fisher's exact test. In addition, multi-variable logistic regression analysis will be conducted to identify the baseline factors associated with calculated good treatment adherence.
Time frame: Up to 24 months
Dose intensity will be calculated overall and by cycle. Data will be summarized by treatment arm with descriptive statistics and graphically over time. Patients will be classified into dichotomous groups based on a 75% relative dose intensity cutoff (< 75% vs >= 75% represents poor vs good treatment adherence). The proportion of patients with poor lenalidomide treatment adherence will be compared between arms using the Fisher's exact test. In addition, multi-variable logistic regression analysis will be conducted to identify the baseline factors associated with calculated good treatment adherence.
Time frame: From randomization to date off treatment, or censored at the date of last treatment, assessed up to 24 months
Treatment duration in each arm will be estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods and compared between arms with the log-rank test.
Time frame: From randomization to progression, or censored at date of last disease evaluation, assessed up to 15 years
Will be estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method.
Time frame: Assessed at each treatment cycle, from cycle 1 of treatment to end of treatment, up to 24 cycles of treatment (each cycle is 28 days)
Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, median, range) will be used to summarize selected PRO-CTCAEs tabulated at each cycle overall and by arm. Will map PRO-CTCAEs with provider reported adverse events (AEs) and evaluate differences in incidence and worst severity. Items correspond to 5 attributes measured [frequency (F), severity (S), interference (I), presence/absence (P) and amount (A)] based on multiple choice questions. Response for each attribute except P which is binary is on a 5-point Likert scale with 5 indicating 'almost constantly' frequency, 'very severe' severity, 'very much' amount or 'very much' interference. An overall PRO-CTCAE score will be calculated at each time point.
Time frame: Up to 15 years
Defined as the sum of item scores on all symptomatic adverse events (AEs). Descriptive statistics will be used to summarize selected PRO-CTCAEs tabulated at each cycle overall and by arm. Will map PRO-CTCAEs with provider reported AEs and evaluate differences in incidence and worst severity. An overall PRO-CTCAE score will be calculated at each time point.
Time frame: At 7, 13, and 19 cycles of treatment (each cycle is 28 days)
Descriptive statistics will be used to summarize ASK-12 scores tabulated at cycles 7, 13 and 19 overall and by arm. Differences between arms will be evaluated based a t-test (or Wilcoxon rank sum test). Patients will also be classified into high versus low likelihood of medication adherence groups according to tertile distributions (lowest tertile vs second and top). Association between likelihood of medication adherence and calculated treatment adherence dichotomous groups will be evaluated in patients with both ASK-12 and treatment data at cycles 7, 13 and 19 post randomization. In addition, multivariable logistic regression analysis will be conducted to identify the baseline factors associated with low likelihood of medication adherence.
Time frame: Up to 15 years
Defined as the proportion of patients who submit the given PRO instrument among those eligible at each time point which excludes those missing by design (due to death or disease progression, early treatment discontinuation).
Time frame: Up to 15 years
Defined as the proportion of patients who complete given PRO instrument based on the instrument's scoring system among those eligible at each time point.
ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group
Network
Daratumumab to Enhance Therapeutic Effectiveness of Revlimid in Smoldering Myeloma (DETER-SMM)
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.
NCT04776395
Blood Protein Disorders, Hematologic Diseases
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT02726750
Blood Protein Disorders, Hematologic Diseases
Houston, Texas, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT05136807
Blood Protein Disorders, Hematologic Diseases
Houston, Texas, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT05312255
Blood Protein Disorders, Cardiovascular Diseases
Buffalo, New York, United States
View Trial Details