Vol 8, No 3 (2017)
Review paper
Published online: 2017-11-23
Flow cytometric minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma
Hematologia 2017;8(3):211-218.
Abstract
Minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment in light of the effectiveness of new multiple myeloma (MM) treatment modalities and related to it increasing ratios of achieved complete remissions (CR), becomes an important tool in recognition of the depth of the response. Multiparametric flow cytometry (MFC) is currently the most popular method for monitoring of MRD presence in bone marrow of MM patients; however, molecular techniques may also be used for MRD assessment. The choice of protocol utilized for MFC-MRD measurement can significantly affect the obtained results, nevertheless standardized and highly sensitive approach of next generation flow (NGF) is already available. The depth of response based on MRD assessment was shown to be an inde-pendent predictor of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Furthermore, the MRD-negative status surpasses the prognostic value of CR achievement for PFS and OS. Thus, MRD status detected by highly sensitive and reproducible MFC is potentially a clinically applicable biomarker for evaluation of different treatment strategies efficacy potentially influencing treatment decisions, and acting as prognostic factor in MM patients.
Keywords: multiple myelomaminimal residual diseaseflow cytometry
References
- Mateos MV, Ocio EM, Paiva B, et al. Treatment for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma in 2015. Blood Rev. 2015; 29(6): 387–403.
- Paiva B, van Dongen JJM, Orfao A. New criteria for response assessment: role of minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma. Blood. 2015; 125(20): 3059–3068.
- Oldaker TA, Wallace PK, Barnett D. Flow cytometry quality requirements for monitoring of minimal disease in plasma cell myeloma. Cytometry B Clin Cytom. 2016; 90(1): 40–46.
- Rawstron AC, Paiva B, Stetler-Stevenson M. Assessment of minimal residual disease in myeloma and the need for a consensus approach. Cytometry B Clin Cytom. 2016; 90(1): 21–25.
- Puig N, Sarasquete ME, Balanzategui A, 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(2): 391–397.
- Martínez-López J, Paiva B, López-Anglada L, et al. Spanish Multiple Myeloma Group / Program for the Study of Malignant Blood Diseases Therapeutics (GEM / PETHEMA) Cooperative Study Group. Critical analysis of the stringent complete response in multiple myeloma: contribution of sFLC and bone marrow clonality. Blood. 2015; 126(7): 858–862.
- Flores-Montero J, Sanoja-Flores L, Paiva B, et al. Next Generation Flow for highly sensitive and standardized detection of minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma. Leukemia. 2017; 31(10): 2094–2103.
- Flores-Montero J, de Tute R, Paiva B, et al. Immunophenotype of normal vs. myeloma plasma cells: Toward antibody panel specifications for MRD detection in multiple myeloma. Cytometry B Clin Cytom. 2016; 90(1): 61–72.
- Martinez-Lopez J, Blade J, Mateos MV, et al. Grupo Español de MM, Programa para el Estudio de la Terapé utica en Hemopatía Maligna. Long-term prognostic significance of response in multiple myeloma after stem cell transplantation. Blood. 2011; 118(3): 529–534.
- Paiva B, Vidriales MB, Cerveró J, et al. GEM (Grupo Español de MM)/PETHEMA (Programa para el Estudio de la Terapéutica en Hemopatías Malignas) Cooperative Study Groups. Multiparameter flow cytometric remission is the most relevant prognostic factor for multiple myeloma patients who undergo autologous stem cell transplantation. Blood. 2008; 112(10): 4017–4023.
- Paiva B, Chandia M, Puig N, et al. The prognostic value of multiparameter flow cytometry minimal residual disease assessment in relapsed multiple myeloma. Haematologica. 2015; 100(2): e53–e55.
- Rawstron AC, Gregory WM, de Tute RM, et al. Minimal residual disease in myeloma by flow cytometry: independent prediction of survival benefit per log reduction. Blood. 2015; 125(12): 1932–1935.
- Lahuerta JJ, Paiva B, Vidriales MB, et al. GEM (Grupo Español de Mieloma)/PETHEMA (Programa para el Estudio de la Terapéutica en Hemopatías Malignas) Cooperative Study Group. Depth of Response in Multiple Myeloma: A Pooled Analysis of Three PETHEMA/GEM Clinical Trials. J Clin Oncol. 2017; 35(25): 2900–2910.
- Rawstron AC, Orfao A, Beksac M, et al. European Myeloma Network. Report of the European Myeloma Network on multiparametric flow cytometry in multiple myeloma and related disorders. Haematologica. 2008; 93(3): 431–438.
- Rihova L, Muthu Raja KR, Calheiros Leite LA. Immunophenotyping in Multiple Myeloma and Others Monoclonal Gammopathies. In. Intech, 2013 .
- Paiva B, Almeida J, Pérez-Andrés M, et al. Utility of flow cytometry immunophenotyping in multiple myeloma and other clonal plasma cell-related disorders. Cytometry B Clin Cytom. 2010; 78(4): 239–252.
- Raja KRM, Kovarova L, Hajek R. Review of phenotypic markers used in flow cytometric analysis of MGUS and MM, and applicability of flow cytometry in other plasma cell disorders. Br J Haematol. 2010; 149(3): 334–351.
- Kumar S, Paiva B, Anderson KC, et al. International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol. 2016; 17(8): e328–e346.
- Rawstron AC, Davies FE, DasGupta R, et al. Flow cytometric disease monitoring in multiple myeloma: the relationship between normal and neoplastic plasma cells predicts outcome after transplantation. Blood. 2002; 100(9): 3095–3100.
- San Miguel JF, Almeida J, Mateo G, et al. Immunophenotypic evaluation of the plasma cell compartment in multiple myeloma: a tool for comparing the efficacy of different treatment strategies and predicting outcome. Blood. 2002; 99(5): 1853–1856.
- Durie BGM, Harousseau JL, Miguel JS, et al. International Myeloma Working Group. International uniform response criteria for multiple myeloma. Leukemia. 2006; 20(9): 1467–1473.
- Rajkumar SV, Harousseau JL, Durie B, et al. International Myeloma Workshop Consensus Panel 1. Consensus recommendations for the uniform reporting of clinical trials: report of the International Myeloma Workshop Consensus Panel 1. Blood. 2011; 117(18): 4691–4695.
- van Dongen JJM, Lhermitte L, Böttcher S, et al. EuroFlow Consortium (EU-FP6, LSHB-CT-2006-018708). EuroFlow antibody panels for standardized n-dimensional flow cytometric immunophenotyping of normal, reactive and malignant leukocytes. Leukemia. 2012; 26(9): 1908–1975.
- Stetler-Stevenson M, Paiva B, Stoolman L, et al. Consensus guidelines for myeloma minimal residual disease sample staining and data acquisition. Cytometry B Clin Cytom. 2016; 90(1): 26–30.
- Arroz M, Came N, Lin P, et al. Consensus guidelines on plasma cell myeloma minimal residual disease analysis and reporting. Cytometry B Clin Cytom. 2016; 90(1): 31–39.
- Pojero F, Flores-Montero J, Sanoja L, et al. EuroFlow group. Utility of CD54, CD229, and CD319 for the identification of plasma cells in patients with clonal plasma cell diseases. Cytometry B Clin Cytom. 2016; 90(1): 91–100.
- Paiva B, Corchete LA, Vidriales MB, et al. Spanish Myeloma Group / Program for the Study of Malignant Blood Diseases Therapeutics (GEM / PETHEMA) Cooperative Study Groups. Phenotypic and genomic analysis of multiple myeloma minimal residual disease tumor cells: a new model to understand chemoresistance. Blood. 2016; 127(15): 1896–1906.
- Rawstron AC, Child JA, de Tute RM, 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(20): 2540–2547.
- de Tute RM, Rawstron AC, Gregory WM, et al. Minimal residual disease following autologous stem cell transplant in myeloma: impact on outcome is independent of induction regimen. Haematologica. 2016; 101(2): e69–e71.
- Paiva B, Cedena MT, Puig N, et al. Grupo Español de Mieloma/Programa para el Estudio de la Terapéutica en Hemopatías Malignas (GEM/PETHEMA) Cooperative Study Groups. Minimal residual disease monitoring and immune profiling in multiple myeloma in elderly patients. Blood. 2016; 127(25): 3165–3174.
