J. Clin. Oncol. 2019 Oct 25
Randomized Trial of Lenalidomide Versus Observation in Smoldering Multiple Myeloma.
Abstract
Purpose
Observation is the current standard of care for smoldering multiple myeloma. We hypothesized that early intervention with lenalidomide could delay progression to symptomatic multiple myeloma.
Methods
We conducted a randomized trial that assessed the efficacy of single-agent lenalidomide compared with observation in patients with intermediate- or high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma. Lenalidomide was administered orally at a dose of 25 mg on days 1 to 21 of a 28-day cycle. The primary end point was progression-free survival, with disease progression requiring the development of end-organ damage attributable to multiple myeloma and biochemical progression.
Results
One hundred eighty-two patients were randomly assigned-92 patients to the lenalidomide arm and 90 to the observation arm. Median follow-up is 35 months. Response to therapy was observed in 50% (95% CI, 39% to 61%) of patients in the lenalidomide arm, with no responses in the observation arm. Progression-free survival was significantly longer with lenalidomide compared with observation (hazard ratio, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.62; P = .002). One-, 2-, and 3-year progression-free survival was 98%, 93%, and 91% for the lenalidomide arm versus 89%, 76%, and 66% for the observation arm, respectively. Only six deaths have been reported, two in the lenalidomide arm versus four in the observation arm (hazard ratio for death, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.08 to 2.53). Grade 3 or 4 nonhematologic adverse events occurred in 25 patients (28%) on lenalidomide.
Conclusion
Early intervention with lenalidomide in smoldering multiple myeloma significantly delays progression to symptomatic multiple myeloma and the development of end-organ damage.
Related Questions
If you treat a patient with high-risk smoldering myeloma on trial and they develop biochemical progression by M-spike, but still no CRAB-SLiM criteria, what would you do next?
My personal preference is to not treat smoldering myeloma.One of the reasons for this is you fall into this very conundrum.The decision to treat was made while the patient was asymptomatic and without end-organ damage. The patient is now in the exact same scenario, so why should the decision-making ...
Which patients with smoldering myeloma do you treat?
Let me address the last comment regarding treatment of high risk smoldering myeloma. IF one thinks that the patient requires treatment for myeloma, why treat with a regimen that is NOT the preferred treatment for myeloma? For example, lenalidomide alone or lenalidomide/dexamethasone. If this were "a...
For young patients with smoldering multiple myeloma who wish to be treated with lenalidomide, how do you go about harvesting their cells for an autologous transplant?
I have serious reservations with treating smoldering myeloma with lenalidomide and in general, discourage it. That is likely a discussion for another day, but my thoughts on this have been summarized here. In general, we are able to secure permission for 'collect and store', and so I would prefer t...
How long do you treat with IMID in a case of smoldering multiple myeloma?
I have not yet adopted use of lenalidomide for SMM, as I believe in the future, we will do away with the definition of SMM—patients either have MGUS which is observed, versus MM which requires the standard platform of myeloma treatment. This will be accomplished with a better molecular understanding...
Does high risk cytogenetics as a sole abnormality influence your treatment decision for smoldering multiple myeloma?
Several studies have looked at the prognostic factor of FISH abnormalities and risk of progression of SMM to active disease (Neben et al., 2013; Rajkumar et al., 2013). Deletion 17p and t(4;14) are associated with the highest risk of progression, with median time to progression of 24 months, as repo...