14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      MRD dynamics during maintenance for improved prognostication of 1280 patients with myeloma in the TOURMALINE-MM3 and -MM4 trials

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          • Conversion from MRD to MRD + or from MRD + to MRD status during ixazomib or placebo maintenance modulates the risk of disease progression.

          • Ixazomib prolonged progression-free survival in patients who were MRD + before maintenance and at a 14-month landmark analysis.

          Visual Abstract

          Abstract

          Measurable residual disease (MRD) evaluation may help to guide treatment duration in multiple myeloma (MM). Paradoxically, limited longitudinal data exist on MRD during maintenance. We investigated the prognostic value of MRD dynamics in 1280 transplant-eligible and -ineligible patients from the TOURMALINE-MM3 and -MM4 randomized placebo-controlled phase 3 studies of 2-year ixazomib maintenance. MRD status at randomization showed independent prognostic value (median progression-free survival [PFS], 38.6 vs 15.6 months in MRD vs MRD + patients; HR, 0.47). However, MRD dynamics during maintenance provided more detailed risk stratification. A 14-month landmark analysis showed prolonged PFS in patients converting from MRD + to MRD status vs those with persistent MRD + status (76.8% vs 27.6% 2-year PFS rates). Prolonged PFS was observed in patients with sustained MRD status vs those converting from MRD to MRD + status (75.0% vs 34.2% 2-year PFS rates). Similar results were observed at a 28-month landmark analysis. Ixazomib maintenance vs placebo improved PFS in patients who were MRD + at randomization (median, 18.8 vs 11.6 months; HR, 0.65) or at the 14-month landmark (median, 16.8 vs 10.6 months; HR, 0.65); no difference was observed in patients who were MRD . This is the largest MM population undergoing yearly MRD evaluation during maintenance reported to date. We demonstrate the limited prognostic value of a single–time point MRD evaluation, because MRD dynamics over time substantially impact PFS risk. These findings support MRD status as a relevant end point during maintenance and confirm the increased progression risk in patients converting to MRD + from MRD status. These trials were registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02181413 and #NCT02312258.

          Abstract

          Measurable residual disease (MRD) status after initial therapy for multiple myeloma is a proven surrogate for progression-free survival (PFS), but its value during maintenance is uncertain. Paiva et al report that serial monitoring of MRD during maintenance treatment captures dynamic conversion between MRD-negative and -positive states and robustly anticipates PFS. This shows the feasibility of longer term MRD monitoring and provides a rationale for trials that investigate intervention prior to frank relapse or shortening of maintenance for those who remain MRD negative.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma.

          Treatment of multiple myeloma has substantially changed over the past decade with the introduction of several classes of new effective drugs that have greatly improved the rates and depth of response. Response criteria in multiple myeloma were developed to use serum and urine assessment of monoclonal proteins and bone marrow assessment (which is relatively insensitive). Given the high rates of complete response seen in patients with multiple myeloma with new treatment approaches, new response categories need to be defined that can identify responses that are deeper than those conventionally defined as complete response. Recent attempts have focused on the identification of residual tumour cells in the bone marrow using flow cytometry or gene sequencing. Furthermore, sensitive imaging techniques can be used to detect the presence of residual disease outside of the bone marrow. Combining these new methods, the International Myeloma Working Group has defined new response categories of minimal residual disease negativity, with or without imaging-based absence of extramedullary disease, to allow uniform reporting within and outside clinical trials. In this Review, we clarify several aspects of disease response assessment, along with endpoints for clinical trials, and highlight future directions for disease response assessments.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Next Generation Flow for highly sensitive and standardized detection of minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma

            Flow cytometry has become a highly valuable method to monitor minimal residual disease (MRD) and evaluate the depth of complete response (CR) in bone marrow (BM) of multiple myeloma (MM) after therapy. However, current flow-MRD has lower sensitivity than molecular methods and lacks standardization. Here we report on a novel next generation flow (NGF) approach for highly sensitive and standardized MRD detection in MM. An optimized 2-tube 8-color antibody panel was constructed in five cycles of design-evaluation-redesign. In addition, a bulk-lysis procedure was established for acquisition of ⩾107 cells/sample, and novel software tools were constructed for automatic plasma cell gating. Multicenter evaluation of 110 follow-up BM from MM patients in very good partial response (VGPR) or CR showed a higher sensitivity for NGF-MRD vs conventional 8-color flow-MRD -MRD-positive rate of 47 vs 34% (P=0.003)-. Thus, 25% of patients classified as MRD-negative by conventional 8-color flow were MRD-positive by NGF, translating into a significantly longer progression-free survival for MRD-negative vs MRD-positive CR patients by NGF (75% progression-free survival not reached vs 7 months; P=0.02). This study establishes EuroFlow-based NGF as a highly sensitive, fully standardized approach for MRD detection in MM which overcomes the major limitations of conventional flow-MRD methods and is ready for implementation in routine diagnostics.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A large meta-analysis establishes the role of MRD negativity in long-term survival outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma

              This meta-analysis establishes the role of MRD negativity in improving long-term survival in a heterogeneous cohort of patients with MM. The strong prognostic value of MRD negativity sets the stage to adopt MRD as a clinically valid surrogate biomarker for PFS and OS in MM. The prognostic value of minimal residual disease (MRD) for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was evaluated in a large cohort of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) using a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Medline and EMBASE databases were searched for articles published up to 8 June 2019, with no date limit on the indexed database. Clinical end points stratified by MRD status (positive or negative) were extracted, including hazard ratios (HRs) on PFS and OS, P values, and confidence intervals (CIs). HRs were estimated based on reconstructed patient-level data from published Kaplan-Meier curves. Forty-four eligible studies with PFS data from 8098 patients, and 23 studies with OS data from 4297 patients were identified to assess the association between MRD status and survival outcomes. Compared with MRD positivity, achieving MRD negativity improved PFS (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.29-0.37; P < .001) and OS (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.39-0.51; P < .001). MRD negativity was associated with significantly improved survival outcomes regardless of disease setting (newly diagnosed or relapsed/refractory MM), MRD sensitivity thresholds, cytogenetic risk, method of MRD assessment, depth of clinical response at the time of MRD measurement, and MRD assessment premaintenance and 12 months after start of maintenance therapy. The strong prognostic value of MRD negativity and its association with favorable outcomes in various disease and treatment settings sets the stage to adopt MRD as a treatment end point, including development of therapeutic strategies. This large meta-analysis confirms the utility of MRD as a relevant surrogate for PFS and OS in MM.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Blood
                Blood
                Blood
                The American Society of Hematology
                0006-4971
                1528-0020
                23 September 2022
                09 February 2023
                23 September 2022
                : 141
                : 6
                : 579-591
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Centro de Investigación Médica Aplicada (CIMA), Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Navarra (IDISNA), CIBERONC (CB16/12/00369), Pamplona, Spain
                [2 ]Hematology and Medical Oncology, Department of Clinical Therapeutics, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
                [3 ]Department of Oncology and Hematology, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria City of Health and Science of Turin, Turin, Italy
                [4 ]Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St Mary’s Hospital, Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea
                [5 ]Department of Hematology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, VU University Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [6 ]Department of Hematology, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
                [7 ]Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik I, Universitätsklinikum TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany
                [8 ]University Hospital of Salamanca, CIC, IBMCC, Salamanca, Spain
                [9 ]Myeloma Unit, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Parma, and Ematologia e CTMO, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Parma, Parma, Italy
                [10 ]IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Istituto di Ematologia “Seràgnoli,” Dipartimento di Medicina Specialistica, Diagnostica e Sperimentale, Università di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
                [11 ]Clínica Bupa Reñaca, Universidad de Valparaíso, Viña del Mar, Valparaíso, Chile
                [12 ]Department of Hematology, Shanghai Changzheng Hospital, Shanghai, China
                [13 ]Department of Hematology, Shanghai Fourth People’s Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
                [14 ]Takeda Development Center Americas, Lexington, MA
                Author notes
                []Correspondence: Bruno Paiva, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Centro de Investigación Médica Aplicada (CIMA), Av de Pío XII, 36, 31008 Pamplona, Spain; bpaiva@ 123456unav.es
                Article
                S0006-4971(22)01308-8
                10.1182/blood.2022016782
                10651778
                36130300
                461409bf-0484-49a4-92c7-06ddac47701f
                © 2023 by The American Society of Hematology. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), permitting only noncommercial, nonderivative use with attribution. All other rights reserved.

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 18 May 2022
                : 3 September 2022
                Categories
                Clinical Trials and Observations

                Hematology
                Hematology

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content149

                Cited by21

                Most referenced authors907