Literature DB >> 27511158

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

Shaji Kumar1, Bruno Paiva2, Kenneth C Anderson3, Brian Durie4, Ola Landgren5, Philippe Moreau6, Nikhil Munshi3, Sagar Lonial7, Joan Bladé8, Maria-Victoria Mateos9, Meletios Dimopoulos10, Efstathios Kastritis10, Mario Boccadoro11, Robert Orlowski12, Hartmut Goldschmidt13, Andrew Spencer14, Jian Hou15, Wee Joo Chng16, Saad Z Usmani17, Elena Zamagni18, Kazuyuki Shimizu19, Sundar Jagannath20, Hans E Johnsen21, Evangelos Terpos10, Anthony Reiman22, Robert A Kyle23, Pieter Sonneveld24, Paul G Richardson3, Philip McCarthy25, Heinz Ludwig26, Wenming Chen27, Michele Cavo18, Jean-Luc Harousseau6, Suzanne Lentzsch28, Jens Hillengass13, Antonio Palumbo29, Alberto Orfao9, S Vincent Rajkumar23, Jesus San Miguel2, Herve Avet-Loiseau30.   

Abstract

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.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27511158     DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30206-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet Oncol        ISSN: 1470-2045            Impact factor:   41.316


  514 in total

1.  An Overview of Cancer Drugs Approved by the US Food and Drug Administration Based on the Surrogate End Point of Response Rate.

Authors:  Emerson Y Chen; Vikram Raghunathan; Vinay Prasad
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2019-07-01       Impact factor: 21.873

2.  Daratumumab, lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone for transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: the GRIFFIN trial.

Authors:  Peter M Voorhees; Jonathan L Kaufman; Jacob Laubach; Douglas W Sborov; Brandi Reeves; Cesar Rodriguez; Ajai Chari; Rebecca Silbermann; Luciano J Costa; Larry D Anderson; Nitya Nathwani; Nina Shah; Yvonne A Efebera; Sarah A Holstein; Caitlin Costello; Andrzej Jakubowiak; Tanya M Wildes; Robert Z Orlowski; Kenneth H Shain; Andrew J Cowan; Sean Murphy; Yana Lutska; Huiling Pei; Jon Ukropec; Jessica Vermeulen; Carla de Boer; Daniela Hoehn; Thomas S Lin; Paul G Richardson
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2020-08-20       Impact factor: 22.113

3.  ImmunoPET imaging of multiple myeloma with [68Ga]Ga-NOTA-Nb1053.

Authors:  Cheng Wang; Yumei Chen; Yun Nan Hou; Qiufang Liu; Di Zhang; Haitao Zhao; You Zhang; Shuxian An; Lianghua Li; Jian Hou; Gang Huang; Jianjun Liu; Yong Juan Zhao; Weijun Wei
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2021-02-05       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 4.  Daratumumab for the treatment of AL amyloidosis.

Authors:  M Hasib Sidiqi; Morie A Gertz
Journal:  Leuk Lymphoma       Date:  2018-07-22

5.  Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone plus transplant in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

Authors:  Jagoda K Jasielec; Tadeusz Kubicki; Noopur Raje; Ravi Vij; Donna Reece; Jesus Berdeja; Benjamin A Derman; Cara A Rosenbaum; Paul Richardson; Sandeep Gurbuxani; Sarah Major; Brittany Wolfe; Andrew T Stefka; Leonor Stephens; Kathryn M Tinari; Tyler Hycner; Alexandra E Rojek; Dominik Dytfeld; Kent A Griffith; Todd M Zimmerman; Andrzej J Jakubowiak
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2020-11-26       Impact factor: 22.113

Review 6.  Imaging in myeloma with focus on advanced imaging techniques.

Authors:  Tara Barwick; Laure Bretsztajn; Kathryn Wallitt; Dimitri Amiras; Andrea Rockall; Christina Messiou
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-01-03       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 7.  Functional and molecular MRI of the bone marrow in multiple myeloma.

Authors:  Vassilis Koutoulidis; Nickolas Papanikolaou; Lia A Moulopoulos
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-02-13       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Development of a method for clinical pharmacokinetic testing to allow for targeted Melphalan dosing in multiple myeloma patients undergoing autologous transplant.

Authors:  Karen Sweiss; Bhaskar Vemu; Craig C Hofmeister; Eric Wenzler; Gregory Sampang Calip; John P Galvin; Nadim Mahmud; Damiano Rondelli; Jeremy James Johnson; Pritesh Patel
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2020-05-01       Impact factor: 4.335

Review 9.  Myeloma in Elderly Patients: When Less Is More and More Is More.

Authors:  Ashley Rosko; Sergio Giralt; Maria-Victoria Mateos; Angela Dispenzieri
Journal:  Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book       Date:  2017

10.  Gamma Gap: A Point-of-Care Test That Correlates With Disease Burden and Treatment Response in Multiple Myeloma.

Authors:  Megan M Dupuis; Barry Paul; Gavin Loitsch; Parker Mathews; Daniel Feinberg; Ian Barak; Zhiguo Li; Sascha A Tuchman; Yubin Kang
Journal:  JCO Oncol Pract       Date:  2020-04-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.