Is MRD testing ready for prime time in multiple myeloma?

Prof. Edward A. Stadtmauer (University of Pennsylvania, PA, USA) discussed the how, the when, as well as who of the patients with multiple myeloma can benefit from minimal residual disease (MRD) testing [1].

The definition of hematologic response has evolved over time for multiple myeloma. The latest IMWG criteria for complete response includes negative immunofixation on the serum and urine, disappearance of any soft tissue plasmacytoma, and <5% plasma cells in bone marrow aspirates, with MRD included based on the IMWG 2016 criteria to provide more accurate response assessments [2]. However, “the role of MRD assessment for individual treatment decisions remains to be determined,” said Prof. Stadtmauer.

Bone marrow assessment of MRD remains the gold standard today, with techniques including next-generation flow cytometry (NGF) and next-generation sequencing (NGS). These techniques also have downsides: “Bone marrow MRD assessment requires repeated invasive procedure and is limited by the known patchy nature of multiple myeloma and possibility of extramedullary disease,” said Prof. Stadtmauer. So what is the best test for MRD? Prof. Stadtmauer reinforced that NGF and NGS are the best methods available today, with imaging such as PET-CT providing additional information.

When should MRD assessments be performed? Optimal timing is uncertain for frontline treatment or during maintenance, but MRD negativity data are strongest through the first year of therapy. In patients with high-risk multiple myeloma, “both sustained MRD negativity and combined bone marrow and imaging MRD may be needed,” said Prof. Stadtmauer. Finally, in relapsed/refractory MM, “while achievement of MRD negativity is associated with better outcomes, most patients do experience relapse.”

Another question that Prof. Stadtmauer posed is whether therapeutic decisions can be taken based on MRD status. “MRD negativity is a very strong and established prognosis marker. However, the impact on therapeutic decision-making remains to be determined.” The single-arm MASTER trial of Dara-KRd induction showed that stopping therapy following 2 consecutive negative MRD assessments leads to low 12-month progression rates [3]. Similarly, in another single-arm trial of  lenalidomide and dexamethasone maintenance, stopping therapy at 2 years if MRD assessment showed negativity led to low 4-year PFS rates [4]. “Although these data are compelling and suggest the logical conclusion that deeper remission is better,” said Prof. Stadtmauer, “they do not clearly show that holding therapy after MRD negative status is superior to continuing therapy”.

The DETERMINATION trial of lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (RVD) induction with/without autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) showed that postponing ASCT due to MRD positivity leads to worsened PFS, while MRD negativity does not lead to a significant difference in terms of PFS regardless of whether ASCT is used or not [5]. Updated data from the PRiMER substudy of the STAMINA trial are also expected soon to show the prognostic value of MRD positivity following ASCT [6]. Several ongoing trials are aiming at determining whether MRD can be used to guide treatment decisions: MIDAS (NCT04934475), PERSEUS (NCT03710603), AURIGA (NCT03901963) and OPTIMUM EAA171 (NCT03941860).

Dr Stadtmauer summarised by saying that “MRD assessment methods allow identification of patients with deep hematologic response and should be incorporated into all multiple myeloma clinical trials.” However, there is currently insufficient evidence to support MRD assessments for individual patient treatment decisions, with ongoing clinical trials aiming to evaluate whether MRD can guide therapy and monitor treatment decisions.

1. Stadtmauer EA. MRD driven strategies: key ongoing and future trials. Session III: MRD in clinical trials and application challenges in clinical practice. EMN 2024, 18–20 April, Turin, Italy.
2. Kumar S, et al. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(8):e328-e346.
3. Costa LJ, et al. Lancet Haematol. 2023;10(11):e890-e901.
4. Rosignol L, et al. Blood. 2023;142(18):1518–1528.
5. Richardson PG, et al. N Engl J Med. 2022;387(2):132-147.
6. Hahn TE, et al. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2019;25:S1-S6.

Medical writing support was provided by Mihai Surducan, PhD.

Copyright ©2024 Medicom Medical Publishers



Posted on 22 April 202422 April 2024