Minimal residual disease status is the prognostic determinant following high-dose treatment for patients with multiple myeloma.

minimum residual disease multiple myeloma prognosis

Journal

Cancer medicine
ISSN: 2045-7634
Titre abrégé: Cancer Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101595310

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Nov 2023
Historique:
revised: 30 08 2023
received: 12 06 2023
accepted: 30 09 2023
pubmed: 3 11 2023
medline: 3 11 2023
entrez: 3 11 2023
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The presence of minimal residual disease (MRD+) following autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in multiple myeloma represents a poor prognostic factor for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). At our department, we recommend lenalidomide maintenance for patients who are MRD+ after ASCT, while MRD-negative (MRD-) patients, after information about the national guidelines, were not advised to follow this regimen. Out of the total 228 patients, 175 received ASCT following first-line induction (MRD- 92 (53%), MRD+ 83 (47%), at 2 months post-ASCT), while 53 underwent ASCT after second-line treatment (MRD- 27 (51%), MRD+ 26 (49%), at the same time point). Comparatively, MRD- patients who did not receive maintenance demonstrated better OS than MRD+ patients who received upfront ASCT and maintenance treatment (96% vs. 86%, p = 0.030, at 3 years). However, nonsignificant difference was found in PFS (76% vs. 62%, at 3 years). Furthermore, second-line ASCT, MRD- non-maintained patients exhibited significantly better PFS than MRD+ (71% vs. 27%, p > 0.001, at 3 years). However, OS was better but nonsignificant (96% vs. 76%, at 3 years). Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis was performed on 141 out of the 228 patients. Of these, 85 (60%) patients were deemed standard risk (SR), and 56 (40%) were classified as high risk (HR). In the SR cohort, MRD- patients exhibited better PFS and OS than MRD+ patients (71% vs. 59% and 100% vs. 85%, respectively). In the HR cohort, the MRD- patients showed superior PFS but similar OS compared to MRD+ patients (66% vs. 42% and 81% vs. 80%, respectively). Our results indicate that being MRD- is a more crucial prognostic factor for the 3-year PFS and OS than the presence of high-risk cytogenetic markers or undergoing maintenance treatment. The latter appears insufficient, particularly for MRD+ patients following ASCT in the second-line setting, suggesting that these patients may require a more intensive treatment approach.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The presence of minimal residual disease (MRD+) following autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in multiple myeloma represents a poor prognostic factor for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).
METHODS METHODS
At our department, we recommend lenalidomide maintenance for patients who are MRD+ after ASCT, while MRD-negative (MRD-) patients, after information about the national guidelines, were not advised to follow this regimen.
RESULTS RESULTS
Out of the total 228 patients, 175 received ASCT following first-line induction (MRD- 92 (53%), MRD+ 83 (47%), at 2 months post-ASCT), while 53 underwent ASCT after second-line treatment (MRD- 27 (51%), MRD+ 26 (49%), at the same time point). Comparatively, MRD- patients who did not receive maintenance demonstrated better OS than MRD+ patients who received upfront ASCT and maintenance treatment (96% vs. 86%, p = 0.030, at 3 years). However, nonsignificant difference was found in PFS (76% vs. 62%, at 3 years). Furthermore, second-line ASCT, MRD- non-maintained patients exhibited significantly better PFS than MRD+ (71% vs. 27%, p > 0.001, at 3 years). However, OS was better but nonsignificant (96% vs. 76%, at 3 years). Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis was performed on 141 out of the 228 patients. Of these, 85 (60%) patients were deemed standard risk (SR), and 56 (40%) were classified as high risk (HR). In the SR cohort, MRD- patients exhibited better PFS and OS than MRD+ patients (71% vs. 59% and 100% vs. 85%, respectively). In the HR cohort, the MRD- patients showed superior PFS but similar OS compared to MRD+ patients (66% vs. 42% and 81% vs. 80%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Our results indicate that being MRD- is a more crucial prognostic factor for the 3-year PFS and OS than the presence of high-risk cytogenetic markers or undergoing maintenance treatment. The latter appears insufficient, particularly for MRD+ patients following ASCT in the second-line setting, suggesting that these patients may require a more intensive treatment approach.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37921243
doi: 10.1002/cam4.6640
pmc: PMC10709722
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

20736-20744

Informations de copyright

© 2023 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Références

Ann Hematol. 2023 Jan;102(1):1-11
pubmed: 36462062
N Engl J Med. 1996 Jul 11;335(2):91-7
pubmed: 8649495
N Engl J Med. 2012 May 10;366(19):1782-91
pubmed: 22571202
Leukemia. 2017 Oct;31(10):2094-2103
pubmed: 28104919
J Clin Oncol. 2022 Sep 1;40(25):2889-2900
pubmed: 35377708
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Oct 10;35(29):3279-3289
pubmed: 28742454
Blood Cancer J. 2022 Apr 13;12(4):63
pubmed: 35418120
Cytometry B Clin Cytom. 2016 Jan;90(1):31-9
pubmed: 25619868
Blood Adv. 2020 Dec 8;4(23):5988-5999
pubmed: 33284948
Lancet Oncol. 2015 Dec;16(16):1617-29
pubmed: 26596670
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2015 Dec;21(12):2039-2051
pubmed: 26428082
Blood. 2018 Dec 6;132(23):2456-2464
pubmed: 30249784
N Engl J Med. 2003 May 8;348(19):1875-83
pubmed: 12736280
Eur J Haematol. 2016 Jan;96(1):46-54
pubmed: 25779478
Blood. 2022 Jan 27;139(4):492-501
pubmed: 34269818
Eur J Haematol. 2022 Jan;108(1):34-44
pubmed: 34536308
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Jan;20(1):57-73
pubmed: 30559051
N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 4;371(10):895-905
pubmed: 25184862
Blood. 2008 Oct 15;112(8):3115-21
pubmed: 18492953
Cancer Med. 2023 Nov;12(22):20736-20744
pubmed: 37921243

Auteurs

Hareth Nahi (H)

Department of Medicine, Institution for biomedicine and clinical science, Linköping, Sweden.
Center for Hematology and Regenerative Medicine, Department of Medicine, Huddinge, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Gabriel Afram (G)

Center for Hematology and Regenerative Medicine, Department of Medicine, Huddinge, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Katarina Uttervall (K)

Center for Hematology and Regenerative Medicine, Department of Medicine, Huddinge, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Sandra Lockmer (S)

Center for Hematology and Regenerative Medicine, Department of Medicine, Huddinge, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Love Tätting (L)

Department of Medicine, Institution for biomedicine and clinical science, Linköping, Sweden.

Gösta Gahrton (G)

Center for Hematology and Regenerative Medicine, Department of Medicine, Huddinge, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Muhammad Kashif (M)

Center for Hematology and Regenerative Medicine, Department of Medicine, Huddinge, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Evren Alici (E)

Center for Hematology and Regenerative Medicine, Department of Medicine, Huddinge, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Olga Stromberg (O)

Department of Medicine, Stockholm, Sweden.

Monika Klimkowska (M)

Center for Hematology and Regenerative Medicine, Department of Medicine, Huddinge, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Johan Lund (J)

Center for Hematology and Regenerative Medicine, Department of Medicine, Huddinge, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Classifications MeSH