Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review
  • Published:

Minimal residual disease testing after stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma

Bone Marrow Transplantation volume 51, pages 2–12 (2016)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Increased use of novel agents and autologous stem cell transplantation has led to a significant improvement in PFS and overall survival in patients with multiple myeloma. Despite improved treatment strategies, most patients eventually relapse due to persistent low levels of disease in the bone marrow. Increasingly sensitive methods to measure or detect such disease have been evaluated, including multi-parametric flow cytometry, PCR, next-generation sequencing and imaging modalities. The following literature review examines current methods for detecting and monitoring minimal or measurable residual disease (MRD) in the post-transplant setting. Improved methods for detecting MRD will refine the current definitions of remission and could guide treatment approaches.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Child JA, Morgan GJ, Davies FE, Owen RG, Bell SE, Hawkins K et al. High-dose chemotherapy with hematopoietic stem-cell rescue for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 1875–1883.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A . Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2013; 63: 11–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Pulte D, Redaniel MT, Lowry L, Bird J, Jeffreys M . Age disparities in survival from lymphoma and myeloma: a comparison between US and England. Br J Haematol 2014; 165: 824–831.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Durie BG, Harousseau JL, Miguel JS, Blade J, Barlogie B, Anderson K et al. International uniform response criteria for multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2006; 20: 1467–1473.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Richardson PG, Weller E, Lonial S, Jakubowiak AJ, Jagannath S, Raje NS et al. Lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone combination therapy in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Blood 2010; 116: 679–686.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Kapoor P, Kumar SK, Dispenzieri A, Lacy MQ, Buadi F, Dingli D et al. Importance of achieving stringent complete response after autologous stem-cell transplantation in multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31: 4529–4535.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. van de Velde HJK, Liu X, Chen G, Cakana A, Deraedt W, Bayssas M . Complete response correlates with long-term survival and progression-free survival in high-dose therapy in multiple myeloma. Haematologica 2007; 92: 1399–1406.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lahuerta JJ, Mateos MV, Martínez-López J, Rosiñol L, Sureda A, de la Rubia J et al. Influence of pre- and post-transplantation responses on outcome of patients with multiple myeloma: sequential improvement of response and achievement of complete response are associated with longer survival. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 5775–5782.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gay F, Larocca A, Wijermans P, Cavallo F, Rossi D, Schaafsma R et al. Complete response correlates with long-term progression-free and overall survival in elderly myeloma treated with novel agents: analysis of 1175 patients. Blood 2011; 117: 3025–3031.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dispenzieri A, Kyle R, Merlini G, Miguel JS, Ludwig H, Hajek R et al. International Myeloma Working Group guidelines for serum-free light chain analysis in multiple myeloma and related disorders. Leukemia 2008; 23: 215–224.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Katzmann JA, Dispenzieri A, Kyle RA, Snyder MR, Plevak MF, Larson DR et al. Elimination of the need for urine studies in the screening algorithm for monoclonal gammopathies by using serum immunofixation and free light chain assays. Mayo Clin Proc 2006; 81: 1575–1578.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bradwell AR, Carr-Smith HD, Mead GP, Tang LX, Showell PJ, Drayson MT et al. Highly sensitive, automated immunoassay for immunoglobulin free light chains in serum and urine. Clin Chem 2001; 47: 673–680.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Malpas J, Bergsagel D, Kyle R, Anderson K . Myeloma Biology and Management, 3rd edn Elsevier: Oxford, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bradwell A, Carr-Smith H, Mead G, Tang L, Showell P, Drayson M et al. Highly sensitive automated immunoassay for immunoglobulin free light chains in serum and urine. Clin Chem 2001; 47: 673–680.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wood PB, McElroy YG, Stone MJ . Comparison of serum immunofixation electrophoresis and free light chain assays in the detection of monoclonal gammopathies. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 2010; 10: 278–280.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wolff F, Thiry C, Willems D . Assessment of the analytical performance and the sensitivity of serum free light chains immunoassay in patients with monoclonal gammopathy. Clin Biochem 2007; 40: 351–354.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Smeltzer J, Gertz M, Rajkumar SV, Dispenzieri A, Lacy M, Buadi F et al. Suppression of involved immunoglobulin free light chain post therapy and survival outcomes following autologous stem cell transplantation for myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2013; 19: S156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cornell RF, Dogra S, Brazauskas R, Goodman S, Jagasia MH, Kassim AA et al. Sustained suppression of involved free light chain predicts long term outcomes in multiple myeloma after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: a multi-institutional study. BMT Tandem Meeting 2014; 20: S74.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hutchison CA, Harding S, Hewins P, Mead GP, Townsend J, Bradwell AR et al. Quantitative assessment of serum and urinary polyclonal free light chains in patients with chronic kidney disease. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2008; 3: 1684–1690.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Wadhera RK, Kyle RA, Larson DR, Dispenzieri A, Kumar S, Lazarus HM et al. Incidence, clinical course, and prognosis of secondary monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance in patients with multiple myeloma. Blood 2011; 118: 2985–2987.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Zent CS, Wilson CS, Tricot G, Jagannath S, Siegel D, Desikan KR et al. Oligoclonal protein bands and ig isotype switching in multiple myeloma treated with high-dose therapy and hematopoietic cell transplantation. Blood 1998; 91: 3518–3523.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. de Larrea CF, Cibeira MT, Elena M, Arostegui JI, Rosiñol L, Rovira M et al. Abnormal serum free light chain ratio in patients with multiple myeloma in complete remission has strong association with the presence of oligoclonal bands: implications for stringent complete remission definition. Blood 2009; 114: 4954–4956.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tovar N, Fernández de Larrea C, Elena M, Cibeira MT, Aróstegui JI, Rosiñol L et al. Prognostic impact of serum immunoglobulin heavy/light chain ratio in patients with multiple myeloma in complete remission after autologous stem cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2012; 18: 1076–1079.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bradwell A, Harding S, Fourrier N, Mathiot C, Attal M, Moreau P et al. Prognostic utility of intact immunoglobulin Ig′κ/Ig′λ ratios in multiple myeloma patients. Leukemia 2013; 27: 202–207.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Barlogie B, Tricot G, Anaissie E, Shaughnessy J, Rasmussen E, van Rhee F et al. Thalidomide and hematopoietic-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 2006; 354: 1021–1030.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Cavo M, Tosi P, Zamagni E, Cellini C, Tacchetti P, Patriarca F et al. Prospective, randomized study of single compared with double autologous stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma: Bologna 96 Clinical Study. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 2434–2441.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. van Rhee F, Giralt S, Barlogie B . The future of autologous stem cell transplantation in myeloma. Blood 2014; 124: 328–333.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Rawstron AC, Orfao A, Beksac M, Bezdickova L, Brooimans RA, Bumbea H et al. Report of the European Myeloma Network on multiparametric flow cytometry in multiple myeloma and related disorders. Haematologica 2008; 93: 431–438.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Korthals M, Sehnke N, Kronenwett R, Schroeder T, Strapatsas T, Kobbe G et al. Molecular monitoring of minimal residual disease in the peripheral blood of patients with multiple myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2013; 19: 1109–1115.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lioznov M, Badbaran A, Fehse B, Bacher U, Zander AR, Kroger NM . Monitoring of minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma after allo-SCT: flow cytometry vs PCR-based techniques. Bone Marrow Transplant 2008; 41: 913–916.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Mason KD, Juneja S . Go with the flow for monitoring response in myeloma with minimal residual disease. Leuk Lymphoma 2008; 49: 177–178.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Rawstron AC, Child JA, de Tute RM, Davies FE, Gregory WM, Bell SE et al. Minimal residual disease assessed by multiparameter flow cytometry in multiple myeloma: impact on outcome in the Medical Research Council Myeloma IX Study. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31: 2540–2547.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. van Dongen JJ, Lhermitte L, Böttcher S, Almeida J, van der Velden VH, Flores-Montero J et al. EuroFlow antibody panels for standardized n-dimensional flow cytometric immunophenotyping of normal, reactive and malignant leukocytes. Leukemia 2012; 26: 1908–1975.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Landgren O, Gormley N, Turley D, Owen RG, Rawstron A, Paiva B et al. Flow cytometry detection of minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma: lessons learned at FDA-NCI roundtable symposium. Am J Hematol 2014; 89: 1159–1160.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Mailankody S, Korde N, Lesokhin AM, Lendvai N, Hassoun H, Stetler-Stevenson M et al. Minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma: bringing the bench to the bedside. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2015; 12: 286–295.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Paiva B, Vidriales M-B, Cerveró J, Mateo G, Pérez JJ, Montalbán MA et al. Multiparameter flow cytometric remission is the most relevant prognostic factor for multiple myeloma patients who undergo autologous stem cell transplantation. Blood 2008; 112: 4017–4023.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Roschewski M, Stetler-Stevenson M, Yuan C, Mailankody S, Korde N, Landgren O . Minimal residual disease: what are the minimum requirements? J Clin Oncol 2014; 32: 475–476.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Martinelli G, Terragna C, Zamagni E, Ronconi S, Tosi P, Lemoli R et al. Polymerase chain reaction-based detection of minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma patients receiving allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Haematologica 2000; 85: 930–934.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Galimberti S, Benedetti E, Morabito F, Papineschi F, Callea V, Fazzi R et al. Prognostic role of minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma patients after non-myeloablative allogeneic transplantation. Leuk Res 2005; 29: 961–966.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Martínez-Sánchez P, Montejano L, Sarasquete ME, García-Sanz R, Fernández-Redondo E, Ayala R et al. Evaluation of minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma patients by fluorescent-polymerase chain reaction: the prognostic impact of achieving molecular response. Br J Haematol 2008; 142: 766–774.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Ladetto M, Pagliano G, Ferrero S, Cavallo F, Drandi D, Santo L et al. Major tumor shrinking and persistent molecular remissions after consolidation with bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone in patients with autografted myeloma. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 2077–2084.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Bakkus MHC, Bouko Y, Samson D, Apperley JF, Thielemans K, Camp BV et al. Post-transplantation tumour load in bone marrow, as assessed by quantitative ASO-PCR, is a prognostic parameter in multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 2004; 126: 665–674.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Putkonen M, Kairisto V, Juvonen V, Pelliniemi T-T, Rauhala A, Itälä-Remes M et al. Depth of response assessed by quantitative ASO-PCR predicts the outcome after stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma. Eur J Haematol 2010; 85: 416–423.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Sarasquete M, Garcia-Sanz R, Gonzalez D, Martinez J, Mateo G, Martinez P et al. Minimal residual disease monitoring in multiple myeloma: a comparison between allelic-specific oligonucleotide real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction and flow cytometry. Haematologica 2005; 90: 1365–1372.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Martinez-Lopez J, Lahuerta JJ, Pepin F, González M, Barrio S, Ayala R et al. Prognostic value of deep sequencing method for minimal residual disease detection in multiple myeloma. Blood 2014; 123: 3073–3079.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Puig N, Sarasquete ME, Balanzategui A, Martinez J, Paiva B, Garcia H et al. Critical evaluation of ASO RQ-PCR for minimal residual disease evaluation in multiple myeloma. A comparative analysis with flow cytometry. Leukemia 2014; 28: 391–397.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Caers J, Withofs N, Hillengass J, Simoni P, Zamagni E, Hustinx R et al. The role of positron emission tomography-computer tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis and follow up of multiple myeloma. Haematologica 2014; 99: 629–637.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A, Blade J, Merlini G, Mateos M-V et al. International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: e538–e548.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Zamagni E, Nanni C, Patriarca F, Englaro E, Castellucci P, Geatti O et al. A prospective comparison of 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and whole-body planar radiographs in the assessment of bone disease in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Haematologica 2007; 92: 50–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Kröpil P, Fenk R, Fritz L, Blondin D, Kobbe G, Mödder U et al. Comparison of whole-body 64-slice multidetector computed tomography and conventional radiography in staging of multiple myeloma. Eur Radiol 2008; 18: 51–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Lecouvet FE, Malghem J, Michaux L, Maldague B, Ferrant A, Michaux JL et al. Skeletal survey in advanced multiple myeloma: radiographic bersus MR imaging survey. Br J Haematol 1999; 106: 35–39.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P, Van Steenweghen S, Thomas J, Vandenberghe P et al. Prognostic value of positron emission tomography (PET) with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose ([18 F]FDG) after first-line chemotherapy in non-hodgkin’s lymphoma: is [18 F]FDG-PET a valid alternative to conventional diagnostic methods? J Clin Oncol 2001; 19: 414–419.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Allal AS, Dulguerov P, Allaoua M, Haenggeli C-A, El Ghazi EA, Lehmann W et al. Standardized uptake value of 2-[18 F] fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose in predicting outcome in head and neck carcinomas treated by radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 1398–1404.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Maisey NR, Webb A, Flux GD, Padhani A, Cunningham DC, Ott RJ et al. FDG–PET in the prediction of survival of patients with cancer of the pancreas: a pilot study. Br J Cancer 2000; 83: 287–293.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Bartel TB, Haessler J, Brown TLY, Shaughnessy JD, van Rhee F, Anaissie E et al. F18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the context of other imaging techniques and prognostic factors in multiple myeloma. Blood 2009; 114: 2068–2076.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Zamagni E, Patriarca F, Nanni C, Zannetti B, Englaro E, Pezzi A et al. Prognostic relevance of 18- F FDG PET/CT in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated with up-front autologous transplantation. Blood 2011; 118: 5989–5995.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Ghanem N, Lohrmann C, Engelhardt M, Pache G, Uhl M, Saueressig U et al. Whole-body MRI in the detection of bone marrow infiltration in patients with plasma cell neoplasms in comparison to the radiological skeletal survey. Eur Radiol 2006; 16: 1005–1014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Baur-Melnyk A, Buhmann S, Dürr HR, Reiser M . Role of MRI for the diagnosis and prognosis of multiple myeloma. Eur J Radiol 2005; 55: 56–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Regelink JC, Minnema MC, Terpos E, Kamphuis MH, Raijmakers PG, Pieters – van den Bos IC et al. Comparison of modern and conventional imaging techniques in establishing multiple myeloma-related bone disease: a systematic review. Br J Haematol 2013; 162: 50–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Baur-Melnyk A, Buhmann S, Becker C, Schoenberg SO, Lang N, Bartl R et al. Whole-body MRI versus whole-body MDCT for staging of multiple myeloma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008; 190: 1097–1104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Walker R, Barlogie B, Haessler J, Tricot G, Anaissie E, Shaughnessy JD et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in multiple myeloma: diagnostic and clinical implications. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 1121–1128.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Walker RC, Brown TL, Jones-Jackson LB, De Blanche L, Bartel T . Imaging of multiple myeloma and related plasma cell dyscrasias. J Nucl Med 2012; 53: 1091–1101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Bannas P, Hentschel H, Bley T, Treszl A, Eulenburg C, Derlin T et al. Diagnostic performance of whole-body MRI for the detection of persistent or relapsing disease in multiple myeloma after stem cell transplantation. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 2007–2012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Derlin T, Peldschus K, Münster S, Bannas P, Herrmann J, Stübig T et al. Comparative diagnostic performance of 18 F-FDG PET/CT versus whole-body MRI for determination of remission status in multiple myeloma after stem cell transplantation. Eur Radiol 2013; 23: 570–578.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Mesguich C, Fardanesh R, Tanenbaum L, Chari A, Jagannath S, Kostakoglu L . State of the art imaging of multiple myeloma: Comparative review of FDG PET/CT imaging in various clinical settings. Eur J Radiol 2014; 83: 2203–2223.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Walker R, Barlogie B, Haessler J, Tricot G, Anaissie E, Shaughnessy JD Jr et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in multiple myeloma: diagnostic and clinical implications. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 1121–1128.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Walker RC, Jones-Jackson LB, Rasmussen E, Miceli M, Angtuaco EJC, Van Rhee F et al. PET and PET/CT imaging in multiple myeloma, solitary plasmacytoma, MGUS, and other plasma cell dyscrasias. Positron Emission Tomography. Springer: London, 2006, pp 283–302.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA

    A M Sherrod & R F Cornell

  2. Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA

    P Hari

  3. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA

    C A Mosse

  4. Department of Clinical Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA

    R C Walker

Authors
  1. A M Sherrod
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P Hari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C A Mosse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R C Walker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. R F Cornell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R F Cornell.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sherrod, A., Hari, P., Mosse, C. et al. Minimal residual disease testing after stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma. Bone Marrow Transplant 51, 2–12 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/bmt.2015.164

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/bmt.2015.164

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links