Hervé Avet-Loiseau1, Heinz Ludwig2, Ola Landgren3, Bruno Paiva4, Chris Morris5, Hui Yang5, Kefei Zhou5, Sunhee Ro5, Maria-Victoria Mateos6. 1. Unité de Génomique du Myélome, University of Toulouse, Toulouse, France. Electronic address: avet-loiseau.h@chu-toulouse.fr. 2. Wilhelminen Cancer Research Institute, Wilhelminenspital, Vienna, Austria. 3. Myeloma Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY. 4. Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Centro de Investigacion Medica Aplicada (CIMA), Instituto de Investigacion Sanitaria de Navarra (IDISNA), CIBER-ONC number CB16/12/00369, Pamplona, Spain. 5. Global Biostatistical Science, Amgen, Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA. 6. Department of Hematology, University Hospital of Salamanca/IBSAL, Salamanca, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Therapeutic advances have greatly extended survival times in patients with multiple myeloma, necessitating increasingly lengthy trials when using survival outcomes as primary endpoints. A surrogate endpoint that can more rapidly predict survival could accelerate drug development. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate minimal residual disease (MRD) status as a valid progression-free survival (PFS) surrogate in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched abstracts in PubMed, The American Society of Hematology, and the European Hematology Association for "myeloma," "minimal residual disease," and "clinical trial." Because of the need to evaluate the treatment effect on MRD response, only randomized studies for subjects with NDMM were included. Details on the MRD-tested populations were required. The meta-analysis was performed by principles outlined at the 2013 United States Food and Drug Administration workshop on MRD in acute myeloid leukemia.42 For samples that were not measured for MRD and within the subset specified for MRD assessment, their MRD status was imputed from the samples that had known MRD status. Patients that were excluded from planned MRD assessment were considered MRD-positive. RESULTS: Six randomized studies, representing 3283 patients and 2208 MRD samples, met analysis inclusion criteria. MRD negativity rates ranged from 0.06 to 0.70. The treatment effect on the odds ratio for MRD-negative response strongly correlated with the hazard ratio for PFS with a coefficient of determination for the weighted regression line of 0.97. Our meta-analysis suggested that MRD status met both the Prentice criteria for PFS surrogacy. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the claim that MRD status can be used as a surrogate for PFS in NDMM.
BACKGROUND: Therapeutic advances have greatly extended survival times in patients with multiple myeloma, necessitating increasingly lengthy trials when using survival outcomes as primary endpoints. A surrogate endpoint that can more rapidly predict survival could accelerate drug development. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate minimal residual disease (MRD) status as a valid progression-free survival (PFS) surrogate in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched abstracts in PubMed, The American Society of Hematology, and the European Hematology Association for "myeloma," "minimal residual disease," and "clinical trial." Because of the need to evaluate the treatment effect on MRD response, only randomized studies for subjects with NDMM were included. Details on the MRD-tested populations were required. The meta-analysis was performed by principles outlined at the 2013 United States Food and Drug Administration workshop on MRD in acute myeloid leukemia.42 For samples that were not measured for MRD and within the subset specified for MRD assessment, their MRD status was imputed from the samples that had known MRD status. Patients that were excluded from planned MRD assessment were considered MRD-positive. RESULTS: Six randomized studies, representing 3283 patients and 2208 MRD samples, met analysis inclusion criteria. MRD negativity rates ranged from 0.06 to 0.70. The treatment effect on the odds ratio for MRD-negative response strongly correlated with the hazard ratio for PFS with a coefficient of determination for the weighted regression line of 0.97. Our meta-analysis suggested that MRD status met both the Prentice criteria for PFS surrogacy. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the claim that MRD status can be used as a surrogate for PFS in NDMM.
Authors: Nicole J Gormley; Danielle M Turley; Jennifer S Dickey; Ann T Farrell; Gregory H Reaman; Elizabeth Stafford; Lea Carrington; Gerald E Marti Journal: Cytometry B Clin Cytom Date: 2015-07-25 Impact factor: 3.058
Authors: María-Victoria Mateos; Meletios A Dimopoulos; Michele Cavo; Kenshi Suzuki; Andrzej Jakubowiak; Stefan Knop; Chantal Doyen; Paulo Lucio; Zsolt Nagy; Polina Kaplan; Ludek Pour; Mark Cook; Sebastian Grosicki; Andre Crepaldi; Anna M Liberati; Philip Campbell; Tatiana Shelekhova; Sung-Soo Yoon; Genadi Iosava; Tomoaki Fujisaki; Mamta Garg; Christopher Chiu; Jianping Wang; Robin Carson; Wendy Crist; William Deraedt; Huong Nguyen; Ming Qi; Jesus San-Miguel Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-12-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: A Keith Stewart; S Vincent Rajkumar; Meletios A Dimopoulos; Tamás Masszi; Ivan Špička; Albert Oriol; Roman Hájek; Laura Rosiñol; David S Siegel; Georgi G Mihaylov; Vesselina Goranova-Marinova; Péter Rajnics; Aleksandr Suvorov; Ruben Niesvizky; Andrzej J Jakubowiak; Jesus F San-Miguel; Heinz Ludwig; Michael Wang; Vladimír Maisnar; Jiri Minarik; William I Bensinger; Maria-Victoria Mateos; Dina Ben-Yehuda; Vishal Kukreti; Naseem Zojwalla; Margaret E Tonda; Xinqun Yang; Biao Xing; Philippe Moreau; Antonio Palumbo Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-12-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Andy C Rawstron; J Anthony Child; Ruth M de Tute; Faith E Davies; Walter M Gregory; Sue E Bell; Alexander J Szubert; Nuria Navarro-Coy; Mark T Drayson; Sylvia Feyler; Fiona M Ross; Gordon Cook; Graham H Jackson; Gareth J Morgan; Roger G Owen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-06-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Joaquin Martinez-Lopez; Juan J Lahuerta; François Pepin; Marcos González; Santiago Barrio; Rosa Ayala; Noemí Puig; María A Montalban; Bruno Paiva; Li Weng; Cristina Jiménez; María Sopena; Martin Moorhead; Teresa Cedena; Immaculada Rapado; María Victoria Mateos; Laura Rosiñol; Albert Oriol; María J Blanchard; Rafael Martínez; Joan Bladé; Jesús San Miguel; Malek Faham; Ramón García-Sanz Journal: Blood Date: 2014-03-19 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Roland B Walter; Yishai Ofran; Agnieszka Wierzbowska; Farhad Ravandi; Christopher S Hourigan; Lok Lam Ngai; Adriano Venditti; Francesco Buccisano; Gert J Ossenkoppele; Gail J Roboz Journal: Leukemia Date: 2021-03-23 Impact factor: 11.528
Authors: Sarah A Holstein; Nizar Bahlis; P Leif Bergsagel; Manisha Bhutani; Niccolo Bolli; Carrie Brownstein; Pierre Demolis; David Foureau; Francesca Gay; Irene M Ghobrial; Nicole Gormley; Jens Hillengass; Martin Kaiser; Marcela V Maus; J Joseph Melenhorst; Maximilian Merz; Michael O Dwyer; Bruno Paiva; Marcelo C Pasquini; Nina Shah; Sandy W Wong; Saad Z Usmani; Philip L McCarthy Journal: Transplant Cell Ther Date: 2021-06-06
Authors: Meletios A Dimopoulos; Philippe Moreau; Evangelos Terpos; María-Victoria Mateos; Sonja Zweegman; Gordon Cook; Michel Delforge; Roman Hájek; Fredrik Schjesvold; Michele Cavo; Hartmut Goldschmidt; Thierry Facon; Hermann Einsele; Mario Boccadoro; Jesús San-Miguel; Pieter Sonneveld; Ulrich Mey Journal: Hemasphere Date: 2021-02-03
Authors: Michele Cavo; Jesus San-Miguel; Saad Z Usmani; Katja Weisel; Meletios A Dimopoulos; Hervé Avet-Loiseau; Bruno Paiva; Nizar J Bahlis; Torben Plesner; Vania Hungria; Philippe Moreau; Maria-Victoria Mateos; Aurore Perrot; Shinsuke Iida; Thierry Facon; Shaji Kumar; Niels W C J van de Donk; Pieter Sonneveld; Andrew Spencer; Maria Krevvata; Christoph Heuck; Jianping Wang; Jon Ukropec; Rachel Kobos; Steven Sun; Mia Qi; Nikhil Munshi Journal: Blood Date: 2022-02-10 Impact factor: 25.476
Authors: Ioannis V Kostopoulos; Ioannis Ntanasis-Stathopoulos; Maria Gavriatopoulou; Ourania E Tsitsilonis; Evangelos Terpos Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2020-05-27 Impact factor: 6.244