Clinical value of measurable residual disease testing for assessing depth, duration, and direction of response in multiple myeloma.
Journal
Blood advances
ISSN: 2473-9537
Titre abrégé: Blood Adv
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101698425
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 07 2020
28 07 2020
Historique:
received:
13
04
2020
accepted:
12
06
2020
entrez:
25
7
2020
pubmed:
25
7
2020
medline:
15
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Few clinical studies have reported results of measurable residual disease (MRD) assessments performed as part of routine practice. Herein we present our single-institution experience assessing MRD in 234 multiple myeloma (MM) patients (newly diagnosed [NDMM = 159] and relapsed [RRMM = 75]). We describe the impact of depth, duration, and direction of response on prognosis. MRD assessments were performed by next-generation sequencing of immunoglobulin genes with a sensitivity of 10-6. Those achieving MRD negativity at 10-6, as well as 10-5, had superior median progression-free survival (PFS). In the NDMM cohort, 40% of the patients achieved MRD negativity at 10-6 and 59% at 10-5. Median PFS in the NDMM cohort was superior in those achieving MRD at 10-5 vs <10-5 (PFS: 87 months vs 32 months; P < .001). In the RRMM cohort, 36% achieved MRD negativity at 10-6 and 47% at 10-5. Median PFS was superior for the RRMM achieving MRD at 10-5 vs <10-5 (PFS: 42 months vs 17 months; P < .01). Serial MRD monitoring identified 3 categories of NDMM patients: (A) patients with ≥3 MRD 10-6 negative samples, (B) patients with detectable but continuously declining clonal numbers, and (C) patients with stable or increasing clonal number (≥1 log). PFS was superior in groups A and B vs C (median PFS not reached [NR], NR, 55 respectively; P < .001). This retrospective evaluation of MRD used as part of clinical care validates MRD as an important prognostic marker in NDMM and RRMM and supports its use as an endpoint in future clinical trials as well as for clinical decision making.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32706892
pii: S2473-9529(20)31553-6
doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020002037
pmc: PMC7391154
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3295-3301Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© 2020 by The American Society of Hematology.
Références
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jan;20(1):57-73
pubmed: 30559051
N Engl J Med. 2016 Aug 25;375(8):754-66
pubmed: 27557302
Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:832049
pubmed: 26783530
N Engl J Med. 2019 May 2;380(18):1726-1737
pubmed: 31042825
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Mar 10;38(8):784-792
pubmed: 31770060
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Aug;17(8):e328-e346
pubmed: 27511158
Lancet. 2017 Feb 4;389(10068):519-527
pubmed: 28017406
JAMA Oncol. 2017 Jan 1;3(1):28-35
pubmed: 27632282
N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 8;378(6):518-528
pubmed: 29231133
Blood. 2014 May 15;123(20):3073-9
pubmed: 24646471
Br J Haematol. 2020 Jan;188(2):249-258
pubmed: 31385309
Leukemia. 2017 Jun;31(6):1446-1449
pubmed: 28210002
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Sep 1;35(25):2900-2910
pubmed: 28498784
Blood Cancer J. 2018 Nov 8;8(11):106
pubmed: 30409963
Am J Hematol. 2019 Dec;94(12):1364-1373
pubmed: 31571261
Int J Mol Sci. 2019 Jun 10;20(11):
pubmed: 31185671
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Apr 20;28(12):2077-84
pubmed: 20308672
Ther Adv Hematol. 2016 Oct;7(5):237-251
pubmed: 27695615
N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 8;379(19):1811-1822
pubmed: 30403938
Blood. 2018 Dec 6;132(23):2456-2464
pubmed: 30249784
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jan 8;372(2):142-52
pubmed: 25482145