Eric Pierce1, Benjamin Mautner1, Joseph Mort1, Anastassia Blewett2, Amy Morris2, Michael Keng1, Firas El Chaer3. 1. Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of Virginia Comprehensive Cancer Center, 1300 Jefferson Park Ave, PO Box 800716, Charlottesville, VA, 22908, USA. 2. Department of Pharmacy Services, University of Virginia Comprehensive Cancer Center, 1300 Jefferson Park Ave, PO Box 800716, Charlottesville, VA, 22908, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of Virginia Comprehensive Cancer Center, 1300 Jefferson Park Ave, PO Box 800716, Charlottesville, VA, 22908, USA. fe2gh@virginia.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Measurable residual disease (MRD) is an important monitoring parameter that can help predict survival outcomes in acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Identifying patients with MRD has the potential to decrease the risk of relapse with the initiation of early salvage therapy and to help guide decision making regarding allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. In this review, we discuss MRD in ALL, focusing on advantages and limitations between MRD testing techniques and how to monitor MRD in specific patient populations. RECENT FINDINGS: MRD has traditionally been measured through bone marrow samples, but more data for evaluation of MRD via peripheral blood is emerging. Current and developmental testing strategies for MRD include multiparametric flow cytometry (MFC), next-generation sequencing (NGS), quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), and ClonoSeq. Novel therapies are incorporating MRD as an outcome measure to demonstrate efficacy, including blinatumomab, inotuzumab ozogamicin, and chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cell therapy. Understanding how to incorporate MRD testing into the management of ALL could improve patient outcomes and predict efficacy of new therapy options.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Measurable residual disease (MRD) is an important monitoring parameter that can help predict survival outcomes in acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Identifying patients with MRD has the potential to decrease the risk of relapse with the initiation of early salvage therapy and to help guide decision making regarding allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. In this review, we discuss MRD in ALL, focusing on advantages and limitations between MRD testing techniques and how to monitor MRD in specific patient populations. RECENT FINDINGS: MRD has traditionally been measured through bone marrow samples, but more data for evaluation of MRD via peripheral blood is emerging. Current and developmental testing strategies for MRD include multiparametric flow cytometry (MFC), next-generation sequencing (NGS), quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), and ClonoSeq. Novel therapies are incorporating MRD as an outcome measure to demonstrate efficacy, including blinatumomab, inotuzumab ozogamicin, and chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cell therapy. Understanding how to incorporate MRD testing into the management of ALL could improve patient outcomes and predict efficacy of new therapy options.
Authors: Forida Y Mortuza; Mary Papaioannou; Ilidia M Moreira; Luke A Coyle; Paula Gameiro; Domenica Gandini; H Grant Prentice; Anthony Goldstone; A Victor Hoffbrand; Letizia Foroni Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-02-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ryan D Cassaday; Philip A Stevenson; Brent L Wood; Pamela S Becker; Paul C Hendrie; Brenda M Sandmaier; Jerald L Radich; Andrei R Shustov Journal: Am J Hematol Date: 2018-01-27 Impact factor: 10.047
Authors: Farhad Ravandi; Jeffrey L Jorgensen; Deborah A Thomas; Susan O'Brien; Rebecca Garris; Stefan Faderl; Xuelin Huang; Sijin Wen; Jan A Burger; Alessandra Ferrajoli; Partow Kebriaei; Richard E Champlin; Zeev Estrov; Pramoda Challagundla; Sa A Wang; Rajyalakshmi Luthra; Jorge E Cortes; Hagop M Kantarjian Journal: Blood Date: 2013-07-08 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Bella Patel; Lena Rai; Georgina Buck; Sue M Richards; Yeasmin Mortuza; Wayne Mitchell; Gareth Gerrard; Anthony V Moorman; Veronique Duke; A Victor Hoffbrand; Adele K Fielding; Anthony H Goldstone; Letizia Foroni Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2009-10-26 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: Jerzy Holowiecki; Malgorzata Krawczyk-Kulis; Sebastian Giebel; Krystyna Jagoda; Beata Stella-Holowiecka; Beata Piatkowska-Jakubas; Monika Paluszewska; Ilona Seferynska; Krzysztof Lewandowski; Marek Kielbinski; Anna Czyz; Agnieszka Balana-Nowak; Maria Król; Aleksander B Skotnicki; Wieslaw W Jedrzejczak; Krzysztof Warzocha; Andrzej Lange; Andrzej Hellmann Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2008-05-19 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: Donald A Berry; Shouhao Zhou; Howard Higley; Lata Mukundan; Shuangshuang Fu; Gregory H Reaman; Brent L Wood; Gary J Kelloff; J Milburn Jessup; Jerald P Radich Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2017-07-13 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Wendy Stock; Selina M Luger; Anjali S Advani; Jun Yin; Richard C Harvey; Charles G Mullighan; Cheryl L Willman; Noreen Fulton; Kristina M Laumann; Greg Malnassy; Elisabeth Paietta; Edy Parker; Susan Geyer; Krzysztof Mrózek; Clara D Bloomfield; Ben Sanford; Guido Marcucci; Michaela Liedtke; David F Claxton; Matthew C Foster; Jeffrey A Bogart; John C Grecula; Frederick R Appelbaum; Harry Erba; Mark R Litzow; Martin S Tallman; Richard M Stone; Richard A Larson Journal: Blood Date: 2019-01-18 Impact factor: 25.476