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.

Multiple myeloma gammopathies

International harmonization in performing and reporting minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma trials

Abstract

Minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment is incorporated in an increasing number of multiple myeloma (MM) clinical trials as a correlative analysis, an endpoint or even as a determinant of subsequent therapy. There is substantial heterogeneity across clinical trials in how MRD is assessed and reported, creating challenges for data interpretation and for the design of subsequent studies. We convened an international panel of MM investigators to harmonize how MRD should be assessed and reported in MM clinical trials. The panel provides consensus on which MM trials should include MRD, the recommended time points for MRD assessment, and expected analytical validation for MRD assays. We subsequently outlined parameters for reporting MRD results implementing the intention-to-treat principle. The panel provides guidance regarding the incorporation of newer peripheral blood-based and imaging-based approaches to detection of residual disease. Recommendations are summarized in 13 consensus statements that should be followed by sponsors, investigators, editors, and reviewers engaged in designing, performing, and interpreting MM trials.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Representation of appropriate calculation and reporting of MRD following intention-to-treat principle.

References

  1. 1.

    Holstein SA, Howard A, Avigan D, Bhutani M, Cohen AD, Costa LJ, et al. Summary of the 2019 Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network Myeloma Intergroup Workshop on Minimal Residual Disease and Immune Profiling. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2020;26:e7–e15.

  2. 2.

    Kumar S, Paiva B, Anderson KC, Durie B, Landgren O, Moreau P, et al. International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:e328–46.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    US FDA. Hematologic malignancies: regulatory considerations for use of minimal residual disease in development of drug and biological products for treatment-guidance for industry. 2020. https://www.fda.gov/media/134605/download. Accessed May 2020.

  4. 4.

    EMA. Guideline on the use of minimal residual disease as a clinical endpoint in multiple myeloma studies. 2018. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/draft-guideline-use-minimal-residual-disease-clinical-endpoint-multiple-myeloma-studies_en.pdf.

  5. 5.

    Shi Q, Flowers CR, Hiddemann W, Marcus R, Herold M, Hagenbeek A, et al. Thirty-month complete response as a surrogate end point in first-line follicular lymphoma therapy: an individual patient-level analysis of multiple randomized trials. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:552–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Sargent DJ, Shi Q, Flowers CR, Schmitz N, Habermann TM, Flament J, et al. The search for surrogate endpoints in trials in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: the surrogate endpoints for Aggressive Lymphoma Project. Oncologist. 2017;22:1415–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Holstein SA, Al-Kadhimi Z, Costa LJ, Hahn T, Hari P, Hillengass J, et al. Summary of the Third Annual Blood And Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network Myeloma Intergroup Workshop on minimal residual disease and immune profiling. Biol Blood Marrow Transpl. 2020;26:e7–e15.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Wood B, Jevremovic D, Bene MC, Yan M, Jacobs P, Litwin V, et al. Validation of cell-based fluorescence assays: practice guidelines from the ICSH and ICCS - part V - assay performance criteria. Cytom B Clin Cytom. 2013;84:315–23.

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Romano A, Palumbo GA, Parrinello NL, Conticello C, Martello M, Terragna C. Minimal residual disease assessment within the bone marrow of multiple myeloma: a review of caveats, clinical significance and future perspectives. Front Oncol. 2019;9:699.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Munshi NC, Avet-Loiseau H, Rawstron AC, Owen RG, Child JA, Thakurta A, et al. Association of minimal residual disease with superior survival outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:28–35.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Lahuerta J-J, Paiva B, Vidriales M-B, Cordón L, Cedena M-T, Puig N, et al. Depth of response in multiple myeloma: a pooled analysis of three PETHEMA/GEM Clinical Trials. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:2900–10.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Paiva B, Cedena MT, Puig N, Arana P, Vidriales MB, Cordon L, et al. Minimal residual disease monitoring and immune profiling in multiple myeloma in elderly patients. Blood. 2016;127:3165–74.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Flores-Montero J, Sanoja-Flores L, Paiva B, Puig N, Garcia-Sanchez O, Bottcher S, et al. Next generation flow for highly sensitive and standardized detection of minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma. Leukemia. 2017;31:2094–103.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Roshal M, Flores-Montero JA, Gao Q, Koeber M, Wardrope J, Durie BGM, et al. MRD detection in multiple myeloma: comparison between MSKCC 10-color single-tube and EuroFlow 8-color 2-tube methods. Blood Adv. 2017;1:728–32.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Paiva B, Puig N, Cedena MT, Rosinol L, Cordon L, Vidriales MB, et al. Measurable residual disease by next-generation flow cytometry in multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2019;38:784–92.

  16. 16.

    Bahlis NJ, Dimopoulos MA, White DJ, Benboubker L, Cook G, Leiba M, et al. Daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: extended follow-up of POLLUX, a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study. Leukemia. 2020;34:1875–84.

  17. 17.

    Mateos MV, Dimopoulos MA, Cavo M, Suzuki K, Jakubowiak A, Knop S, et al. Daratumumab plus bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone for untreated myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:518–28.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Spencer A, Lentzsch S, Weisel K, Avet-Loiseau H, Mark TM, Spicka I, et al. Daratumumab plus bortezomib and dexamethasone versus bortezomib and dexamethasone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: updated analysis of CASTOR. Haematologica. 2018;103:2079–87.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Perrot A, Lauwers-Cances V, Corre J, Robillard N, Hulin C, Chretien ML, et al. Minimal residual disease negativity using deep sequencing is a major prognostic factor in multiple myeloma. Blood. 2018;132:2456–64.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    clonoSEQ®. ClonoSEQ techinical summary. Seattle, WA: Adaptive Biotechnologies; 2018. https://www.clonoseq.com/technical-summary.

  21. 21.

    Martinez-Lopez J, Lahuerta JJ, Pepin F, Gonzalez M, Barrio S, Ayala R, et al. Prognostic value of deep sequencing method for minimal residual disease detection in multiple myeloma. Blood. 2014;123:3073–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Costa LJ, Chhabra S, Godby KN, Medvedova E, Cornell RF, Hall AC, et al. Daratumumab, carfilzomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Dara-KRd) induction, autologous transplantation and post-transplant, response-adapted, measurable residual disease (MRD)-based Dara-Krd consolidation in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Blood. 2019;134:860–860.

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Arcila ME, Yu W, Syed M, Kim H, Maciag L, Yao J, et al. Establishment of immunoglobulin heavy (IGH) Chain clonality testing by next-generation sequencing for routine characterization of B-cell and plasma cell neoplasms. J Mol Diagn. 2019;21:330–42.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    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;28:391–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Takamatsu H. Comparison of minimal residual disease detection by multiparameter flow cytometry, ASO-qPCR, droplet digital PCR, and deep sequencing in patients with multiple myeloma who underwent autologous stem cell transplantation. J Clin Med. 2017;6:91.

  26. 26.

    Oliva S, Genuardi E, Belotti A, Frascione PMM, Galli M, Capra A, et al. Minimal residual disease evaluation by multiparameter flow cytometry and next generation sequencing in the forte trial for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients. Blood. 2019;134:4322–4322.

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Avet-Loiseau H, Bene MC, Wuilleme S, Corre J, Attal M, Arnulf B, et al. Concordance of post-consolidation minimal residual disease rates by multiparametric flow cytometry and next-generation sequencing in CASSIOPEIA. Clin Lymph Myeloma Leuk. 2019;19: e3–4.

  28. 28.

    Moreau P, Attal M, Hulin C, Arnulf B, Belhadj K, Benboubker L, et al. Bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone with or without daratumumab before and after autologous stem-cell transplantation for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (CASSIOPEIA): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study. Lancet. 2019;394:29–38.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Torlakovic EE, Brynes RK, Hyjek E, Lee SH, Kreipe H, Kremer M, et al. ICSH guidelines for the standardization of bone marrow immunohistochemistry. Int J Lab Hematol. 2015;37:431–49.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Sanoja-Flores L, Flores-Montero J, Puig N, Contreras-Sanfeliciano T, Pontes R, Corral-Mateos A, et al. Blood monitoring of circulating tumor plasma cells by next generation flow in multiple myeloma after therapy. Blood. 2019;134:2218–22.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Oberle A, Brandt A, Voigtlaender M, Thiele B, Radloff J, Schulenkorf A, et al. Monitoring multiple myeloma by next-generation sequencing of V(D)J rearrangements from circulating myeloma cells and cell-free myeloma DNA. Haematologica. 2017;102:1105–11.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Mazzotti C, Buisson L, Maheo S, Perrot A, Chretien ML, Leleu X, et al. Myeloma MRD by deep sequencing from circulating tumor DNA does not correlate with results obtained in the bone marrow. Blood Adv. 2018;2:2811–3.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Vij R, Mazumder A, Klinger M, O’Dea D, Paasch J, Martin T, et al. Deep sequencing reveals myeloma cells in peripheral blood in majority of multiple myeloma patients. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2014;14:131–9.e131.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Puig N, Mateos M-V, Contreras T, Paiva B, Cedena MT, Pérez JJ, et al. Qip-mass spectrometry in high risk smoldering multiple myeloma patients included in the GEM-CESAR Trial: comparison with conventional and minimal residual disease IMWG response assessment. Blood. 2019;134:581–581.

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Eveillard M, Rustad E, Roshal M, Zhang Y, Ciardiello A, Korde N, et al. Comparison of MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry analysis of peripheral blood and bone marrow-based flow cytometry for tracking measurable residual disease in patients with multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol. 2020;189:904–7.

  36. 36.

    Noem P, Contreras T, Paiva B, Cedena MT, Martinez-Lopez J, Oriol A, et al. Analysis of treatment efficacy in the GEM-CESAR trial for high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma patients: Comparison between the standard and IMWG MRD criteria and QIP-MS including FLC (QIP-FLC-MS). J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:8512.

  37. 37.

    Derman BA, Stefka AT, McIver A, Jiang K, Kubicki T, Jasielec J. Measurable residual disease (MRD) assessed by mass spectrometry (MS) in peripheral blood versus next generation sequencing (NGS) in bone marrow in multiple myeloma treated on phase II trial of KRd+ASCT. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:8513.

  38. 38.

    Varettoni M, Corso A, Pica G, Mangiacavalli S, Pascutto C, Lazzarino M. Incidence, presenting features and outcome of extramedullary disease in multiple myeloma: a longitudinal study on 1003 consecutive patients. Ann Oncol. 2010;21:325–30.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Usmani SZ, Heuck C, Mitchell A, Szymonifka J, Nair B, Hoering A, et al. Extramedullary disease portends poor prognosis in multiple myeloma and is over-represented in high-risk disease even in the era of novel agents. Haematologica. 2012;97:1761–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Raje N, Berdeja J, Lin Y, Siegel D, Jagannath S, Madduri D, et al. Anti-BCMA CAR T-cell therapy bb2121 in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:1726–37.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Lonial S, Lee HC, Badros A, Trudel S, Nooka AK, Chari A, et al. Belantamab mafodotin for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (DREAMM-2): a two-arm, randomised, open-label, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2019;21:207–21.

  42. 42.

    Hillengass J, Usmani S, Rajkumar SV, Durie BGM, Mateos MV, Lonial S, et al. International myeloma working group consensus recommendations on imaging in monoclonal plasma cell disorders. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:e302–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Moreau P, Attal M, Caillot D, Macro M, Karlin L, Garderet L, et al. Prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging and [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography at diagnosis and before maintenance therapy in symptomatic patients with multiple myeloma included in the IFM/DFCI 2009 Trial: results of the IMAJEM Study. J Clin Oncol 2017;35: 2911–8.

  44. 44.

    Moreau P, Zweegman S, Perrot A, Hulin C, Caillot D, Facon T, et al. Evaluation of the prognostic value of positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) at diagnosis and follow-up in transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (TE NDMM) patients treated in the Phase 3 Cassiopeia Study: results of the Cassiopet Companion Study. Blood. 2019;134:692–692.

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Alonso R, Cedena MT, Gomez-Grande A, Rios R, Moraleda JM, Cabanas V, et al. Imaging and bone marrow assessments improve minimal residual disease prediction in multiple myeloma. Am J Hematol. 2019;94:853–61.

  46. 46.

    Rasche L, Alapat D, Kumar M, Gershner G, McDonald J, Wardell CP, et al. Combination of flow cytometry and functional imaging for monitoring of residual disease in myeloma. Leukemia. 2019;33:1713–22.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Rasche L, Angtuaco E, McDonald JE, Buros A, Stein C, Pawlyn C, et al. Low expression of hexokinase-2 is associated with false-negative FDG-positron emission tomography in multiple myeloma. Blood. 2017;130:30–4.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Ulaner GA, Sobol NB, O’Donoghue JA, Kirov AS, Riedl CC, Min R, et al. CD38-targeted immuno-PET of multiple myeloma: from xenograft models to first-in-human imaging. Radiology. 2020;295:192621.

  49. 49.

    Krishnan AY, Adhikarla V, Chaudhry A, Palmer J, Poku EK, Biglang-awa VE, et al. First-in-human imaging of multiple myeloma using copper-64-labeled daratumumab: preliminary results. Blood. 2019;134:4394–4394.

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Martinez-Lopez J, Blade J, Mateos MV, Grande C, Alegre A, Garcia-Larana J, et al. Long-term prognostic significance of response in multiple myeloma after stem cell transplantation. Blood. 2011;118:529–34.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Harousseau JL, Avet-Loiseau H, Attal M, Charbonnel C, Garban F, Hulin C, et al. Achievement of at least very good partial response is a simple and robust prognostic factor in patients with multiple myeloma treated with high-dose therapy: long-term analysis of the IFM 99-02 and 99-04 trials. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5720–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    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;117:3025–31.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Lahuerta JJ, Mateos MV, Martinez-Lopez J, Rosinol 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;26:5775–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Facon T, Kumar S, Plesner T, Orlowski RZ, Moreau P, Bahlis N, et al. Daratumumab plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone for untreated myeloma. N. Engl J Med. 2019;380:2104–15.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Dimopoulos MA, Oriol A, Nahi H, San-Miguel J, Bahlis NJ, Usmani SZ, et al. Daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1319–31.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Palumbo A, Chanan-Khan A, Weisel K, Nooka AK, Masszi T, Beksac M, et al. Daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone for multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:754–66.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Munshi NC, Berdeja JG, Lin Y, Kochenderfer J, Raje NS, Liedtke M, et al. Early MRD negativity to predict deepening myeloma response in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients treated with bb2121 anti-BCMA CAR T cells. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:8024–8024.

    Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Costa LJ, Wong SW, Bermúdez A, de la Rubia J, Mateos M-V, Ocio EM, et al. First clinical study of the B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) 2+1 T cell engager (TCE) CC-93269 in patients (Pts) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM): interim results of a phase 1 multicenter trial. Blood. 2019;134:143–143.

    Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A, Blade J, Merlini G, Mateos MV, et al. International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:e538–548.

    Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Mateos MV, Hernandez MT, Giraldo P, de la Rubia J, de Arriba F, Lopez Corral L, et al. Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone for high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma. N. Engl J Med. 2013;369:438–47.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Lonial S, Jacobus S, Fonseca R, Weiss M, Kumar S, Orlowski RZ, et al. Randomized trial of lenalidomide versus observation in smoldering multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:1126–37.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Mateos M-V, Martinez-Lopez J, Rodriguez Otero P, Gonzalez-Calle V, Gonzalez MS, Oriol A, et al. Curative strategy (GEM-CESAR) for high-risk smoldering myeloma (SMM): carfilzomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (KRd) as induction followed by HDT-ASCT, consolidation with Krd and maintenance with Rd. Blood. 2019;134:781–781.

    Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Korde N, Roschewski M, Zingone A, Kwok M, Manasanch EE, Bhutani M, et al. Treatment with carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone with lenalidomide extension in patients with smoldering or newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1:746–54.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Landgren O, Hultcrantz M, Lesokhin AM, Mailankody S, Hassoun H, Smith EL, et al. Weekly carfilzomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone and daratumumab (wKRd-D) combination therapy provides unprecedented MRD negativity rates in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a clinical and correlative phase 2 study. Blood. 2019;134:862–862.

    Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Wang X, Zhou J, Wang T, George SL. On enrichment strategies for biomarker stratified clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat. 2018;28:292–308.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Palumbo A, Avet-Loiseau H, Oliva S, Lokhorst HM, Goldschmidt H, Rosinol L, et al. Revised international staging system for multiple myeloma: a report from International Myeloma Working Group. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2863–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Gopalakrishnan S, D’Souza A, Scott E, Fraser R, Davila O, Shah N, et al. Revised international staging system is predictive and prognostic for early relapse (<24 months) after autologous transplantation for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Biol Blood Marrow Transpl. 2019;25:683–8.

    Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Mikhael JR, Dingli D, Roy V, Reeder CB, Buadi FK, Hayman SR, et al. Management of newly diagnosed symptomatic multiple myeloma: updated Mayo Stratification of Myeloma and Risk-Adapted Therapy (mSMART) consensus guidelines 2013. Mayo Clin Proc. 2013;88:360–76.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Rajkumar SV. Multiple myeloma: 2020 update on diagnosis, risk-stratification and management. Am J Hematol. 2020;95:548–67.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Gokbuget N, Dombret H, Bonifacio M, Reichle A, Graux C, Faul C, et al. Blinatumomab for minimal residual disease in adults with B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood. 2018;131:1522–31.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Lin T, Hampras S, Krey R, Pei H, Qi M, Krevvata M, et al. Daratumumab plus lenalidomide versus lenalidomide alone as maintenance treatment in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma after frontline transplant: A Multicenter, Randomized, Phase 3 Study (AURIGA). Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2019;19:e199.

    Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Morè S, Corvatta L, Maracci L, Costantini B, Olivieri A, Offidani M. Developments in consolidation and maintenance strategies in post-remission multiple myeloma. Exp Rev Hematol. 2020;13:351–62.

  73. 73.

    Voorhees PM, Kaufman JL, Laubach JP, Sborov DW, Reeves B, Rodriguez C, et al. Daratumumab, lenalidomide, bortezomib, & dexamethasone for transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: GRIFFIN. Blood. 2020:32325490.

  74. 74.

    Gay F, Cerrato C, Petrucci MT, Zambello R, Gamberi B, Ballanti S, et al. Efficacy of carfilzomib lenalidomide dexamethasone (KRd) with or without transplantation in newly diagnosed myeloma according to risk status: results from the FORTE trial. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:8002–8002.

    Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Rawstron AC, Gregory WM, de Tute RM, Davies FE, Bell SE, Drayson MT, et al. Minimal residual disease in myeloma by flow cytometry: independent prediction of survival benefit per log reduction. Blood. 2015;125:1932–5.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Paiva B, Martinez-Lopez J, Vidriales MB, Mateos MV, Montalban MA, Fernandez-Redondo E, et al. Comparison of immunofixation, serum free light chain, and immunophenotyping for response evaluation and prognostication in multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:1627–33.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Rasche L, Chavan SS, Stephens OW, Patel PH, Tytarenko R, Ashby C, et al. Spatial genomic heterogeneity in multiple myeloma revealed by multi-region sequencing. Nat Commun. 2017;8:268.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    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;118:5989–95.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luciano J. Costa.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

LC: Honoraria (Amgen, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, AbbVie), Research Funding (Amgen, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Janssen); RS: Honoraria (Janssen); VH: Honoraria (Janssen, AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Celgene, Takeda); W-JC: Honoraria (Takeda); ES: Honoraria (Celgene, Takeda, Novartis, Teva, Janssen, Amgen, Sanofi); SG: Honoraria (Celgene, Takeda, Amgen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Sanofi, Janssen), Research Funding (Celgene, Takeda, Miltenyi Biotec, Johnson & Johnson, Amgen); AJJ: Honoraria (Amgen, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Janssen, Takeda, Skyline DX), Consultancy (Abbvie); GJM: Honoraria (Celgene, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Novartis, Roche, Genentech, Takeda, Amgen, Karyopharm, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen); AK: Ownership Interest (Celgene, Kite Pharma), Honoraria (Celgene, Onyx, Janssen, Takeda, Kite Pharma, Seattle Genetics), Research Funding (Celgene, Takeda); GHJ: Honoraria (Roche, Amgen, Janssen); MM: Honoraria (Janssen, Sanofi, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Amgen, Roche); MM: Honoraria (Janssen, Sanofi, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Amgen) Research support (Roche); MVV: Honoraria (Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Takeda, AbbvVie, GlaxoSmithKline, Adaptive, Edo-Mundipharma, PharmaMar); MAD: Honoraria (Amgen, Janssen, Takeda, Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb); TF: Honoraria (Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Amgen, Sanofi, Karyopharm, Oncopeptides, Roche); AS: Honoraria (Takeda, Celgene, Janssen, Amgen), Research funding (Takeda, Celgene, Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline); JSM: Honoraria (Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Takeda, Sanofi, Roche); PH: Honoraria (Takeda, Prothena, Pfizer), Research funding (Takeda); SU: Honoraria (Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Amgen, Takeda, Sanofi, Janssen), Research funding (Onyx, Janssen, Sanofi, Array BioPharma, Pharmacyclics, Takeda, Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb); PM: Honoraria (Celgene, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Janssen, The Binding Site), Research support (Celgene); SK: Honoraria (AbbVie, Celgene, Kite Pharma). FG: Honoraria (Takeda, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Seattle Genetics, Roche). BP: Honoraria (Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Takeda, Sanofi), Research funding (Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Sanofi, Takeda).

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Costa, L.J., Derman, B.A., Bal, S. et al. International harmonization in performing and reporting minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma trials. Leukemia 35, 18–30 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41375-020-01012-4

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links