The mm Hub website uses a third-party service provided by Google that dynamically translates web content. Translations are machine generated, so may not be an exact or complete translation, and the mm Hub cannot guarantee the accuracy of translated content. The mm and its employees will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential damages (even if foreseeable) resulting from use of the Google Translate feature. For further support with Google Translate, visit Google Translate Help.
The Multiple Myeloma Hub is an independent medical education platform, sponsored by Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi. The levels of sponsorship listed are reflective of the amount of funding given. View funders.
Now you can support HCPs in making informed decisions for their patients
Your contribution helps us continuously deliver expertly curated content to HCPs worldwide. You will also have the opportunity to make a content suggestion for consideration and receive updates on the impact contributions are making to our content.
Find out moreCreate an account and access these new features:
Bookmark content to read later
Select your specific areas of interest
View mm content recommended for you
Monitoring minimal residual disease (MRD) is an important tool to assess disease burden and response to therapy. MRD negativity (defined as less than one myeloma cell per 10-6 of bone marrow cells) has been associated with improved survival.1 MRD is used as a prognostic factor, helping to identify high-risk patients and assisting in treatment-making decisions.1 Read more on MRD here.
However, methods used to detect MRD differ in sensitivity and there is a lack of standardization in sample source and processing. Moreover, sampling of bone marrow (BM) is an invasive procedure with relatively low sensitivity. In contrast, monitoring of blood for circulating tumor plasma cells (CTPC), tumor-derived DNA, RNA, or protein markers have been reported as a less invasive and more precise way of quantifying absolute numbers of CTPC than BM MRD.2–5
Luzalba Sanoja-Flores, the University of Salamanca, Salamanca, ES, and colleagues investigated CTPC detected in peripheral blood (PB) using next-generation flow (NGF) cytometry as a prognostic factor for patients with multiple myeloma (MM). The study was conducted on behalf of EuroFlow Consortium. This article summarizes the results of the study, recently published in Blood journal.6
CTPC were detected in the post-treatment blood samples of 26% of patients, which was at a similar level to previously reported for allele-specific oligonucleotide polymerase chain reaction (PCR)7,8 and next-generation sequencing (NGS)3,9, and 50% higher than previously reported with conventional flow cytometry.10,11 Among patients who achieved a complete response (CR) or stringent CR (sCR), 17% were CTPC+ by NGF versus 0–8%11,12 by conventional flow cytometry. However, NGF failed to detect CTPC in 55/137 (40%) of BM MRD+ and 41/137 (30%) of sIF+ paired samples.
In the total MM cohort (n = 137) and in patients who achieved CR/sCR (n = 71), CTPC− and BM MRD− patients had a longer progression-free survival (PFS) compared to those who tested positive, with the biggest differences in outcome seen in patients that became CTPC+ after initially being CTPC−. In univariate and multivariate analysis, age ≥ 65 years and cytogenetic profile did not have a significant impact on PFS in the total MM cohort or in patients who achieved CR/sCR. The prognostic factors with a significant impact are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Selected analysis of prognostic factors for PFS in MM
BM, bone marrow; CI, confidence interval, CR, complete response; CTPC, circulating tumor plasma cells; HR, hazard ratio; IF, immunofixation; MRD, minimal residual disease; NGS, next-generation flow; PB, peripheral blood; PFS, progression-free survival; sCR, stringent CR |
|||||
|
Univariable analysis |
Multivariable analysis |
|||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Median PFS (months) |
p-value |
HR |
95% CI |
p-value |
|
Prognostic factors for the whole MM cohort Serum IF Negative Positive BM MRD status by NGF Negative Positive PB CTPC status by NGF Negative Positive |
41 18
46 25
46 9 |
0.001
< 0.0001
< 0.0001 |
— 2.4
—
— 5.1 |
— 1.3–4.4
—
— 2.9–8.9 |
— 0.004
—
— < 0.0001 |
Prognostic factors for sCR/CR cohort BM MRD status by NGF Negative Positive PB CTPC status by NGF Negative Positive |
50 25
46 9 |
< 0.0001
< 0.0001 |
— 6.1
— 7.4 |
— 1.5–24.4
— 3.0–18.2 |
— 0.01
— < 0.0001 |
Additionally, in sequentially followed cases, patients who were persistently CTPC−, or became CTPC− after initially being CTPC+ (n = 41), had significantly improved PFS compared with cases CTPC+ at last study follow-up (n = 13; 50% PFS: not reached vs 19 months; p < 0.0001), independent of sIF status. The statistically significant factors were then combined into a prognostic score to stratify patients into three risk categories (values given below are for the total MM cohort):
The findings suggest that PB CTPC may be a novel independent prognostic marker for PFS in patients with MM. This less invasive method, compared to BM sampling, may be more suitable for patients who require frequent monitoring and, therefore, more informative than a single time-point BM MRD. A larger study with a longer follow-up is required to confirm these findings.
References
Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements:
The content was clear and easy to understand
The content addressed the learning objectives
The content was relevant to my practice
I will change my clinical practice as a result of this content