Chutima Kunacheewa1, Hans C Lee1, Krina Patel1, Sheeba Thomas1, Behrang Amini2, Samer Srour3, Qaiser Bashir3, Yago Nieto3, Muzzaffar H Qazilbash3, Donna M Weber1, Lei Feng4, Robert Z Orlowski1, Pei Lin5, Elisabet E Manasanch6. 1. Department of Lymphoma/Myeloma, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. 2. Division of Diagnostic Imaging, Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. 3. Department of Stem Cell Transplantation, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. 4. Department of Statistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. 5. Department of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. 6. Department of Lymphoma/Myeloma, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. Electronic address: eemanasanch@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Minimal residual disease (MRD) is a standard measurement for response assessment in multiple myeloma (MM). Despite new treatments, high-risk MM patients continue to have poor prognosis. We evaluated the effect of MRD negativity in high-risk versus standard-risk patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated all consecutive MM patients who underwent routine MRD testing by 1-tube 8-color advanced flow cytometry with 2,000,000 events and sensitivity level 10-5 at our center from 2015 to 2018 after initial therapy. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank test were used to assess survival estimates and differences between study groups. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-six patients with MRD testing after initial therapy or autologous stem-cell transplantation were identified. At a median follow-up of 14 months (range, 1-36 months), progression-free survival and overall survival were significantly worse in high-risk versus standard-risk patients. During the study period, 50% of high-risk group had experienced disease progression (relapse and/or death) versus 20% in the standard-risk group (P = .0006). No patients with standard-risk died, but 4 (14%) in the high-risk group did (P = .0007). Regardless of MRD status, high-risk patients had statistically significant worse progression-free survival than standard-risk patients. At median follow-up, those with disease 10% standard-risk/MRD negative; 20% standard-risk/MRD positive; 40% high-risk/MRD negative; and 45% high-risk/MRD positive had either experienced relapse or died (P = .0041). MRD status did not significantly affect overall survival in either group (P = .0914); however, longer follow-up is needed to assess survival. CONCLUSION: Genetic abnormalities remain a powerful prognostic indicator for MM, regardless of MRD status. For newly diagnosed MM patients treated with novel triple-drug initial therapy and frontline autologous stem-cell transplantation, MRD-negative status did not mitigate the poor-prognosis outcomes of high-risk MM patients.
BACKGROUND: Minimal residual disease (MRD) is a standard measurement for response assessment in multiple myeloma (MM). Despite new treatments, high-risk MMpatients continue to have poor prognosis. We evaluated the effect of MRD negativity in high-risk versus standard-risk patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated all consecutive MMpatients who underwent routine MRD testing by 1-tube 8-color advanced flow cytometry with 2,000,000 events and sensitivity level 10-5 at our center from 2015 to 2018 after initial therapy. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank test were used to assess survival estimates and differences between study groups. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-six patients with MRD testing after initial therapy or autologous stem-cell transplantation were identified. At a median follow-up of 14 months (range, 1-36 months), progression-free survival and overall survival were significantly worse in high-risk versus standard-risk patients. During the study period, 50% of high-risk group had experienced disease progression (relapse and/or death) versus 20% in the standard-risk group (P = .0006). No patients with standard-risk died, but 4 (14%) in the high-risk group did (P = .0007). Regardless of MRD status, high-risk patients had statistically significant worse progression-free survival than standard-risk patients. At median follow-up, those with disease 10% standard-risk/MRD negative; 20% standard-risk/MRD positive; 40% high-risk/MRD negative; and 45% high-risk/MRD positive had either experienced relapse or died (P = .0041). MRD status did not significantly affect overall survival in either group (P = .0914); however, longer follow-up is needed to assess survival. CONCLUSION:Genetic abnormalities remain a powerful prognostic indicator for MM, regardless of MRD status. For newly diagnosed MMpatients treated with novel triple-drug initial therapy and frontline autologous stem-cell transplantation, MRD-negative status did not mitigate the poor-prognosis outcomes of high-risk MMpatients.
Authors: Bei Hu; Peter Thall; Denái R Milton; Koji Sasaki; Qaiser Bashir; Nina Shah; Krina Patel; Uday Popat; Chitra Hosing; Yago Nieto; Pei Lin; Ruby Delgado; Jeffrey Jorgensen; Elisabet Manasanch; Donna Weber; Sheeba Thomas; Robert Z Orlowski; Richard Champlin; Muzaffar H Qazilbash Journal: Leuk Lymphoma Date: 2018-07-22
Authors: Jeffrey R Sawyer; Erming Tian; Christoph J Heuck; Donald J Johann; Joshua Epstein; Charles M Swanson; Janet L Lukacs; Regina Lichti Binz; Marian Johnson; Gael Sammartino; Maurizio Zangari; Faith E Davies; Frits van Rhee; Gareth J Morgan; Bart Barlogie Journal: Blood Date: 2015-05-05 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Bruno Paiva; Norma C Gutiérrez; Laura Rosiñol; María-Belén Vídriales; María-Ángeles Montalbán; Joaquín Martínez-López; María-Victoria Mateos; María-Teresa Cibeira; Lourdes Cordón; Albert Oriol; María-José Terol; María-Asunción Echeveste; Raquel de Paz; Felipe de Arriba; Luis Palomera; Javier de la Rubia; Joaquín Díaz-Mediavilla; Anna Sureda; Ana Gorosquieta; Adrian Alegre; Alejandro Martin; Miguel T Hernández; Juan-José Lahuerta; Joan Bladé; Jesús F San Miguel Journal: Blood Date: 2011-11-29 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Maria Arroz; Neil Came; Pei Lin; Weina Chen; Constance Yuan; Anand Lagoo; Mariela Monreal; Ruth de Tute; Jo-Anne Vergilio; Andy C Rawstron; Bruno Paiva Journal: Cytometry B Clin Cytom Date: 2015-06-02 Impact factor: 3.058
Authors: Helgi J K van de Velde; Xiangyang Liu; Gang Chen; Andrew Cakana; William Deraedt; Martine Bayssas Journal: Haematologica Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: Shaji K Kumar; S Vincent Rajkumar; Angela Dispenzieri; Martha Q Lacy; Suzanne R Hayman; Francis K Buadi; Steven R Zeldenrust; David Dingli; Stephen J Russell; John A Lust; Philip R Greipp; Robert A Kyle; Morie A Gertz Journal: Blood Date: 2007-11-01 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Andy C Rawstron; Alberto Orfao; Meral Beksac; Ludmila Bezdickova; Rik A Brooimans; Horia Bumbea; Klara Dalva; Gwenny Fuhler; Jan Gratama; Dirk Hose; Lucie Kovarova; Michael Lioznov; Gema Mateo; Ricardo Morilla; Anne K Mylin; Paola Omedé; Catherine Pellat-Deceunynck; Martin Perez Andres; Maria Petrucci; Marina Ruggeri; Grzegorz Rymkiewicz; Alexander Schmitz; Martin Schreder; Carine Seynaeve; Martin Spacek; Ruth M de Tute; Els Van Valckenborgh; Nicky Weston-Bell; Roger G Owen; Jesús F San Miguel; Pieter Sonneveld; Hans E Johnsen Journal: Haematologica Date: 2008-02-11 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: Hyun-Young Kim; In Young Yoo; Dae Jin Lim; Hee-Jin Kim; Sun-Hee Kim; Sang Eun Yoon; Seok Jin Kim; Duck Cho; Kihyun Kim Journal: Ann Lab Med Date: 2022-09-01 Impact factor: 4.941