| Literature DB >> 27511158 |
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.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