Minimal residual disease analysis in myeloma – when, why and where

References

• Barlogie B, Mitchell A, van Rhee F, et al. Curing myeloma at last: defining criteria and providing the evidence. Blood. 2014;124:3043–3051.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gay F, Larocca A, Wijermans P, et al. Complete response correlates with long-term progression-free and overall survival in elderly myeloma treated with novel agents: analysis of 1175 patients. Blood. 2011;117:3025–3031.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van de Velde HJ, Liu X, Chen G, et al. Complete response correlates with long-term survival and progression-free survival in high-dose therapy in multiple myeloma. Haematologica. 2007;92:1399–1406.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lahuerta JJ, Mateos MV, Martinez-Lopez J, et al. Influence of pre- and post-transplantation responses on outcome of patients with multiple myeloma: sequential improvement of response and achievement of complete response are associated with longer survival. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:5775–5782.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durie BG, Harousseau JL, Miguel JS, et al. International uniform response criteria for multiple myeloma. Leukemia. 2006;20:1467–1473.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martinez-Lopez J, Paiva B, Lopez-Anglada L, et al. Critical analysis of the stringent complete response in multiple myeloma: contribution of sFLC and bone marrow clonality. Blood. 2015;126:858–862.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kapoor P, Kumar SK, Dispenzieri A, et al. Importance of achieving stringent complete response after autologous stem-cell transplantation in multiple myeloma. JCO. 2013;31:4529–4535.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radocha J, Pour L, Pika T, et al. Multicentered patient-based evidence of the role of free light chain ratio normalization in multiple myeloma disease relapse. Eur J Haematol. 2016;96:119–127.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paiva B, Vidriales MB, Cervero J, et al. Multiparameter flow cytometric remission is the most relevant prognostic factor for multiple myeloma patients who undergo autologous stem cell transplantation. Blood. 2008;112:4017–4023.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paiva B, Martinez-Lopez J, Vidriales MB, et al. Comparison of immunofixation, serum free light chain, and immunophenotyping for response evaluation and prognostication in multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:1627–1633.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paiva B, Gutierrez NC, Rosinol L, et al. High-risk cytogenetics and persistent minimal residual disease by multiparameter flow cytometry predict unsustained complete response after autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma. Blood. 2012;119:687–691.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rawstron AC, Child JA, de Tute RM, et al. Minimal residual disease assessed by multiparameter flow cytometry in multiple myeloma: impact on outcome in the Medical Research Council Myeloma IX Study. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:2540–2547.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roussel M, Lauwers-Cances V, Robillard N, et al. Front-line transplantation program with lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone combination as induction and consolidation followed by lenalidomide maintenance in patients with multiple myeloma: a phase II study by the Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome. JCO. 2014;32:2712–2717.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rawstron AC, Paiva B, Stetler-Stevenson M. Assessment of minimal residual disease in myeloma and the need for a consensus approach. Cytometry. 2016;90:21–25.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sarasquete ME, Garcia-Sanz R, Gonzalez D, et al. Minimal residual disease monitoring in multiple myeloma: a comparison between allelic-specific oligonucleotide real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction and flow cytometry. Haematologica. 2005;90:1365–1372.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dhakal B, Girnius S, Hari P. Recent advances in understanding multiple myeloma. F1000Res. 2016;5. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.8777.1
   Google Scholar
• Gonsalves WI, Milani P, Derudas D, et al. The next generation of novel therapies for the management of relapsed multiple myeloma. Future Oncol. 2016;11:11.
   Google Scholar
• Paiva B, Puig N, García-Sanz R, et al. Is this the time to introduce minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma clinical practice? Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21:2001–2008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar S, Paiva B, Anderson KC, et al. International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(8):e328–e346.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mailankody S, Korde N, Lesokhin AM, et al. Minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma: bringing the bench to the bedside. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2015;12:286–295.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Avet-Loiseau H, Corre J, Lauwers-Cances V, et al. Evaluation of Minimal Residual Disease (MRD) By Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) is highly predictive of progression free survival in the IFM/DFCI 2009 Trial. Blood. 2015;126:191.
   Google Scholar
• Landgren O, Owen RG. Better therapy requires better response evaluation: paving the way for minimal residual disease testing for every myeloma patient. Cytometry. 2016;90:14–20.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moreau P, Attal M, Caillot D, et al. Prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging and [18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography at diagnosis and before maintenance therapy in symptomatic patients with multiple myeloma included in the IFM/DFCI 2009 trial: results of the IMAJEM study. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(25):2911–2918.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Puig N, Sarasquete ME, Balanzategui A, et al. Critical evaluation of ASO RQ-PCR for minimal residual disease evaluation in multiple myeloma. A comparative analysis with flow cytometry. Leukemia. 2014;28:391–397.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lahuerta JJ, Paiva B, Vidriales MB, et al. Depth of response in multiple myeloma: a pooled analysis of three PETHEMA/GEM clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(25):2900–2910.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flores-Montero J, de Tute R, Paiva B, et al. Immunophenotype of normal vs. myeloma plasma cells: toward antibody panel specifications for MRD detection in multiple myeloma. Cytometry. 2016;90:61–72.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Flanders A, Stetler-Stevenson M, Landgren O. Minimal residual disease testing in multiple myeloma by flow cytometry: major heterogeneity. Blood. 2013;122(6):1088–1089.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keeney M, Halley JG, Rhoads DD, et al. Marked variability in reported minimal residual disease lower level of detection of 4 hematolymphoid neoplasms: a survey of participants in the College of American Pathologists Flow Cytometry Proficiency Testing Program. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2015;139:1276–1280.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arroz M, Came N, Lin P, et al. Consensus guidelines on plasma cell myeloma minimal residual disease analysis and reporting. Cytometry. 2016;90:31–39.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pojero F, Flores-Montero J, Sanoja L, et al. Utility of CD54, CD229, and CD319 for the identification of plasma cells in patients with clonal plasma cell diseases. Cytometry. 2016;90:91–100.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rawstron AC, Paiva B, Stetler-Stevenson M. Assessment of minimal residual disease in myeloma and the need for a consensus approach. Cytometry B Clin Cytom. 2016;90:21–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martinez-Lopez J, Lahuerta JJ, Pepin F, et al. Prognostic value of deep sequencing method for minimal residual disease detection in multiple myeloma. Blood. 2014;123:3073–3079.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landgren O, Gormley N, Turley D, et al. Flow cytometry detection of minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma: lessons learned at FDA-NCI roundtable symposium. Am J Hematol. 2014;89:1159–1160.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Dongen JJ, van der Velden VH, Bruggemann M, et al. Minimal residual disease diagnostics in acute lymphoblastic leukemia: need for sensitive, fast, and standardized technologies. Blood. 2015;125:3996–4009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Royston DJ, Gao Q, Nguyen N, et al. Single-tube 10-fluorochrome analysis for efficient flow cytometric evaluation of minimal residual disease in plasma cell myeloma. Am J Clin Pathol. 2016;146:41–49.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korthals M, Sehnke N, Kronenwett R, et al. The level of minimal residual disease in the bone marrow of patients with multiple myeloma before high-dose therapy and autologous blood stem cell transplantation is an independent predictive parameter. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2012;18(3):423–431.e3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Putkonen M, Kairisto V, Juvonen V, et al. Depth of response assessed by quantitative ASO-PCR predicts the outcome after stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma. Eur J Haematol. 2010;85(5):416–423.
   Google Scholar
• Ladetto M, Pagliano G, Ferrero S, et al. Major tumor shrinking and persistent molecular remissions after consolidation with bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone in patients with autografted myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(12):2077–2084.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martinelli G, Terragna C, Zamagni E, et al. Molecular remission after allogeneic or autologous transplantation of hematopoietic stem cells for multiple myeloma. JCO. 2000;18:2273–2281.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paino T, Paiva B, Sayagues JM, et al. Phenotypic identification of subclones in multiple myeloma with different chemoresistant, cytogenetic and clonogenic potential. Leukemia. 2015;29:1186–1194.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drandi D, Kubiczkova-Besse L, Ferrero S, et al. Minimal residual disease detection by droplet digital PCR in multiple myeloma, mantle cell lymphoma, and follicular lymphoma: a comparison with real-time PCR. J Mol Diagn. 2015;17:652–660.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zamagni E, Patriarca F, Nanni C, et al. Prognostic relevance of 18-F FDG PET/CT in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated with up-front autologous transplantation. Blood. 2011;118:5989–5995.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caldarella C, Isgro MA, Treglia I, et al. Is fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography useful in monitoring the response to treatment in patients with multiple myeloma? Int J Hematol. 2012;96:685–691.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caldarella C, Treglia G, Isgro MA, et al. The role of fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in evaluating the response to treatment in patients with multiple myeloma. Int J Mol Imaging. 2012;175803–175810.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moreau P, Attal M, Karlin L, et al. Prospective evaluation of MRI and PET-CT at diagnosis and before maintenance therapy in symptomatic patients with multiple myeloma included in the IFM/DFCI 2009 trial. Blood. 2015;126:395.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yanamandra U, Mittal BR, Upadesh M, et al. Is 18F-FDG-PET/CT a good MRD marker in patients with multiple myeloma? Comparison and correlation with biochemical markers/flow cytometry. ASCO Meet Abstr. 2016;34:8029.
   Google Scholar
• Zamagni E, Nanni C, Mancuso K, et al. PET/CT improves the definition of complete response and allows to detect otherwise unidentifiable skeletal progression in multiple myeloma. Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21:4384–4390.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Usmani SZ, Mitchell A, Waheed S, et al. Prognostic implications of serial 18-fluoro-deoxyglucose emission tomography in multiple myeloma treated with total therapy 3. Blood. 2013;121:1819–1823.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nanni C, Zamagni E, Versari A, et al. Image interpretation criteria for FDG PET/CT in multiple myeloma: a new proposal from an Italian expert panel. IMPeTUs (Italian Myeloma criteria for PET USe). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:414–421.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dammacco F, Rubini G, Ferrari C, et al. (1)(8)F-FDG PET/CT: a review of diagnostic and prognostic features in multiple myeloma and related disorders. Clin Exp Med. 2015;15:1–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lonial S, Kaufman JL. Non-secretory myeloma: a clinician's guide. Oncology (Williston Park, NY). 2013;27:924–928, 30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orchard K, Barrington S, Buscombe J, et al. Fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging for the detection of occult disease in multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol. 2002;117:133–135.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sager S, Ergul N, Ciftci H, et al. The value of FDG PET/CT in the initial staging and bone marrow involvement of patients with multiple myeloma. Skeletal Radiol. 2011;40:843–847.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yanamandra U, Mittal BR, Reddy A, et al. Role of PET/CT in prognosticating post-transplant outcomes based on a new scoring system: results of PIPET-M TRIAL. ASCO Meet Abstr. 2016;34:8028.
   Google Scholar
• Luckerath K, Lapa C, Spahmann A, et al. Targeting paraprotein biosynthesis for non-invasive characterization of myeloma biology. PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e84840.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lapa C, Knop S, Schreder M, et al. 11C-Methionine-PET in multiple myeloma: correlation with clinical parameters and bone marrow involvement. Theranostics. 2016;6:254–261.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A, et al. International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:70442–70445.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhutani M, Landgren O. Imaging in smoldering (asymptomatic) multiple myeloma. Past, present and future. Der Radiol. 2014;54:572, 574–581.
   Google Scholar
• Cascini GL, Falcone C, Console D, et al. Whole-body MRI and PET/CT in multiple myeloma patients during staging and after treatment: personal experience in a longitudinal study. Radiol Med. 2013;118:930–948.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferrero S, Ladetto M, Drandi D, et al. Long-term results of the GIMEMA VEL-03-096 trial in MM patients receiving VTD consolidation after ASCT: MRD kinetics' impact on survival. Leukemia. 2015;29:689–695.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galimberti S, Morabito F, Guerrini F, et al. Peripheral blood stem cell contamination evaluated by a highly sensitive molecular method fails to predict outcome of autotransplanted multiple myeloma patients. Br J Haematol. 2003;120:405–412.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Galimberti S, Benedetti E, Morabito F, et al. Prognostic role of minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma patients after non-myeloablative allogeneic transplantation. Leuk Res. 2005;29:961–966.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chanan-Khan A, Somlo G, Heffner LT, et al. Indatuximab ravtansine (BT062) in combination with lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma: clinical activity in Len/Dex-refractory patients. Blood. 2013;122:758.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCudden CR, Voorhees PM, Hainsworth SA, et al. Interference of monoclonal antibody therapies with serum protein electrophoresis tests. Clin Chem. 2010;56:1897–1899.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Genzen JR, Kawaguchi KR, Furman RR. Detection of a monoclonal antibody therapy (ofatumumab) by serum protein and immunofixation electrophoresis. Br J Haematol. 2011;155:123–125.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dekker LJ, Zeneyedpour L, Brouwer E, et al. An antibody-based biomarker discovery method by mass spectrometry sequencing of complementarity determining regions. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2011;399:1081–1091.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Remily-Wood ER, Benson K, Baz RC, et al. Quantification of peptides from immunoglobulin constant and variable regions by LC-MRM MS for assessment of multiple myeloma patients. Prot Clin Appl. 2014;8:783–795.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnidge DR, Tschumper RC, Theis JD, et al. Monitoring M-proteins in patients with multiple myeloma using heavy-chain variable region clonotypic peptides and LC–MS/MS. J Proteome Res. 2014;13:1905–1910.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergen HR, 3rd, Dasari S, Dispenzieri A, et al. Clonotypic light chain peptides identified for monitoring minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma without bone marrow aspiration. Clin Chem. 2016;62:243–251.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korthals M, Sehnke N, Kronenwett R, et al. Molecular monitoring of minimal residual disease in the peripheral blood of patients with multiple myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2013;19(7):1109–1115.
   Google Scholar
• Kaedbey R, Kis O, Danesh A, et al. Noninvasive diagnosis of actionable mutations by deep sequencing of circulating cell free DNA (cfDNA) in multiple myeloma (MM). Clin Lymph Myeloma Leuk. 2015;15:e45–e46.
   Google Scholar
• Hocking J, Mithraprabhu S, Kalff A, et al. Liquid biopsies for liquid tumors: emerging potential of circulating free nucleic acid evaluation for the management of hematologic malignancies. Cancer Biol Med. 2016;13:215–225.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tovar N, Fernandez de Larrea C, Elena M, et al. Prognostic impact of serum immunoglobulin heavy/light chain ratio in patients with multiple myeloma in complete remission after autologous stem cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2012;18:1076–1079.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ludwig H, Milosavljevic D, Zojer N, et al. Immunoglobulin heavy/light chain ratios improve paraprotein detection and monitoring, identify residual disease and correlate with survival in multiple myeloma patients. Leukemia. 2013;27:213–219.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egan JB, Shi CX, Tembe W, et al. Whole-genome sequencing of multiple myeloma from diagnosis to plasma cell leukemia reveals genomic initiating events, evolution, and clonal tides. Blood. 2012;120:1060–1066.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keats JJ, Chesi M, Egan JB, et al. Clonal competition with alternating dominance in multiple myeloma. Blood. 2012;120:1067–1076.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan GJ, Walker BA, Davies FE. The genetic architecture of multiple myeloma. Nat Rev Cancer. 2012;12:335–348.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paiva B, Paino T, Sayagues JM, et al. Detailed characterization of multiple myeloma circulating tumor cells shows unique phenotypic, cytogenetic, functional, and circadian distribution profile. Blood. 2013;122:3591–3598.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paiva B, Corchete LA, Vidriales MB, et al. Phenotypic and genomic analysis of multiple myeloma minimal residual disease tumor cells: a new model to understand chemoresistance. Blood. 2016;127:1896–1906.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar