1. Introduction
Although multiple myeloma (MM) remains an incurable disease, median overall survival (OS) for newly diagnosed patients has dramatically improved in the last few decades, and it is now closer to 10 years, with increasing proportions of long-term survivors [ 1 ]. This substantial progress is mostly due to a number of effective therapies, most of them fulfilling the “targeted agent” definition, an increased knowledge of how to best combine them, and better supportive care. However, this OS gamechanger effect has ushered in another paradigm shift. Traditionally, MM was grouped among neoplasms, such as metastatic carcinomas, in which therapy rarely induced complete remissions (CR) [ 2 , 3 ]. Due to the generalized use of proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory drugs, and monoclonal antibodies, response rates have also dramatically increased, with virtually all patients responding to therapy and more than 50% of those who respond satisfying CR criteria [ 4 ]. Achieving frequent deep responses has necessarily led us to test the conceptual advantages for assessing and treating MM patients with only minimal residual disease (MRD), as less malignant cells potentially would: (i) reduce the possibility of subclonal resistance, (ii) avoid remodeling microenvironments inducing chemoprotective niches, and (iii) allow drug tolerability by adjusting doses or avoiding dose-limiting end organ damage caused by a higher disease burden [ 5 ]. This paper will assess this seemingly unavoidable assembly between MM and MRD by addressing the following questions: where do we come from, where are we, where are we going, how we do it, and whether it is affordable. For that purpose, we will follow, as it is not uncommon in our hematology field [ 6 , 7 , 8 ], a Victorian wedding rhyme, with the poetic license allowing us to alter the order of the “Something blue” and “Something borrowed” verses.
2. Something Old: MRD and MM Past
Building evidence showing us that targeting MRD can prevent relapse in cancer comes from experience using adjuvant therapy for epithelial tumors and sarcomas, which has the central aim of eradicating MRD that escapes surgical resection. Studies across multiple solid tumor types have confirmed that more patients achieve long-term disease-free survival with the combination of surgery and adjuvant therapy than with surgery alone [ 9 ].
For blood cancers such as acute leukemias or high-grade lymphomas, a single cycle of intensive chemotherapy can induce CR, but virtually no patient is cured without additional therapy to eradicate MRD [ 10 ]. Arguably, the most validated application of MRD-directed therapy is in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia, where tailoring consolidation therapy based on MRD load is now routine practice [ 11 ]. The success of this approach relies on directing the intensity of therapy. The next step was established from a chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) scenario, where patients with inadequate initial responses to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), or an increase in the level of MRD following an initial response, are commonly tested for the presence of BCR–ABL kinase domain variants that confer TKI resistance, using MRD for targeted approaches to eradicate resistant clones [ 12 ]. In addition, patients with CML who achieve optimal responses to first- or second-line TKI therapy (defined as sustained, deep remissions of greater than 4–5 log10 reductions in BCR–ABL transcript using the International Scale) may be candidates for drug cessation after multiple years of TKI therapy, showing us the capacity of MRD to guide therapy discontinuation [ 13 ].
Response assessment in MM has traditionally been based on the evaluation of serum and urine monoclonal protein concentrations by means of protein electrophoresis and/or immunofixation, as a surrogate for disease burden, allowing for the detection of minimal amounts of paraprotein [ 14 ]. The initial definition of a CR only required less than 5% of plasma cells in the bone marrow (BM), irrespective of their clonal nature. This definition was further refined to stringent CR by the addition of the serum-free light chain ratio assay plus immunohistochemical clonal assessment on the trephine biopsy [ 15 ]. These consensus criteria were uniformly incorporated into clinical trials, allowing improved comparisons, and they remained applicable while older therapies were predominant, including autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) when less than half of patients achieved CR [ 16 ].
Indisputably, the achievement of MRD negativity conferred a more favorable outcome for treated MM patients, even when the targeted era was making its entrance. A first meta-analysis by Landgren et al. [ 17 ], and the one that followed by Munshi et al. [ 18 ], which included a higher proportion of studies with “older” therapies and various approaches for MRD detection, verified the prognostic impact of MRD negativity in clinical outcome. The latter meta-analysis showed a 59% reduced risk of progression and 43% reduced risk of death for MRD-negative patients with a median progression free survival (PFS) of 54 vs. 26 months and a median OS of 98 vs. 82 months for MRD-negative vs. MRD-positive patients, respectively. When compared with other prognostic factors, MRD has been shown to be superior and the most relevant predictor of clinical outcome. In multivariate analyses, the achievement of MRD negativity is proven to be the strongest independent prognostic factor, surpassing other favorable prognostic parameters [ 19 ].
However, in the last decade, with new therapies targeting the myeloma cell itself, as well as the microenvironment and the immune system, achieving MRD states is now highly feasible [ 20 ]. Thus, in 2016, the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) defined the presence of MRD in myeloma as having one tumor cell in at least 10 5 normal cells in BM (minimum sensitivity threshold of 10 −5 ), recognized its detection as an important endpoint, and updated the response criteria to include measurement of MRD as the deepest level of response that could be achieved [ 14 ]. Since then, using sensitive methods, superior PFS and OS outcomes were observed in patients who achieved MRD negativity [ 21 , 22 , 23 ].
3. Something New: MRD and MM Present and Future
Recently, that prognostic value of MRD in MM has been confirmed as more patients are treated with new agents, and their outcomes are pooled and updated. In 2020, Munshi et al. performed the largest and most recent systematic review and meta-analysis on this issue [ 24 ]. They compiled data of 8098 patients from 44 studies published from 1998 to 2019 on the role of MRD in survival outcomes. Twenty-nine studies assessed MRD status by flow cytometry [ 19 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 ], eight by qPCR [ 28 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 ], and nine by next-generation sequencing (NGS) [ 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 ]. Some studies evaluated MRD simultaneously by both immunophenotypic and molecular methods. The sensitivity threshold among works ranged from 10 −4 to 10 −6 .
Overall, 3111 patients were MRD-negative and 4987 were MRD-positive. Cases that achieved MRD-negative status had significantly increased PFS and OS than those who remained MRD-positive, with pooled estimated relative risk reductions for progression and death of 67% (95%CI: 63–71%) and 55% (95%CI: 49–61%), respectively. Subgroup analysis revealed that the prognostic benefit of MRD negativity was independent from the method of MRD evaluation or the sensitivity threshold used. It was also associated with significantly improved survival outcomes, regardless of cytogenetic risk (high or standard risks), the depth of response at MRD assessment (CR and above or very good partial response [VGPR] and above), and the time of MRD measurement (newly diagnosed or relapsed/refractory disease, and before or after maintenance therapy initiation). In summary, cumulative evidence confirms the robust association of MRD status and survival outcomes in MM. Thus, it is rational that numerous ongoing clinical trials are currently considering MRD negativity as an additional primary endpoint.
More recently, the therapeutic landscape of hematologic neoplasms has been revolutionized by diverse targeted agents, such as TKIs and immunotherapy, which are showing high antitumor efficacy, even in patients with unfavorable biological features or refractory disease. Some of the advancements in MM are certainly related to the introduction of newer generations of proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs [ 29 , 68 ], but also to novel monoclonal antibodies, combined in potent triplets/quadruplets in early lines of therapy. Daratumumab is the first-in-class anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody used in MM. After demonstrating a strong efficacy in monotherapy or in combination regimens in patients with relapsed/refractory disease [ 69 ], it was quickly added to the backbone of early multidrug schemes in numerous clinical trials [ 65 , 70 ]. All of these studies showed that the incorporation of daratumumab yielded higher and deeper rates of response, including a significantly increased proportion of patients achieving MRD-negative status, which was at least doubled in the experimental arm of most trials [ 71 ].
These unprecedent responses observed with triplet/quadruplet regimens have resulted in more prolonged survival, but most patients eventually develop refractory disease to one or more drugs from the three aforementioned therapeutic categories, ultimately becoming triple-/penta-refractory [ 72 , 73 ]. For these heavily pretreated and aggressive cases with very poor prognosis, antigen-directed immunotherapies, such as monoclonal/conjugate antibodies [ 74 ], T-cell engagers [ 75 ], and, notably, chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy, show impressive outcomes [ 76 ]. Unlike kinase inhibitors used in chronic lymphocytic leukemia and B-cell lymphoma, which were themselves associated with potent effect but persistent detectable disease, requiring continuous treatment [ 77 ], immunotherapy for MM has the capacity to reach deep clinical responses and MRD negativity [ 78 ].
In 2017, Mohyuddin et al. published a systematic review and meta-analysis of 950 MM patients from 30 studies conducted from 2016 to 2020 on CAR T-cells, mainly directed against the B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) [ 79 ]. Since the number of studies with a follow-up long enough for reporting survival outcomes is limited, pooled information regarding PFS and OS is not provided; however, the authors report a summary estimated response rate of 78.3% (95%CI: 72.4–84.3%). In this systematic review, MRD assessment data were collected from 461 patients from 15 studies [ 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 ]. Although pooled MRD analysis is not performed in this work, based on the information provided, we have conducted an estimation in this cohort by using a random effect model, using metaprop command in Stata 16/IC software (StataCorp LLC, USA). With this approach, the pooled proportion of patients achieving MRD-negative status estimate was 58.7% (95%CI: 44.4–73.1%) in all patients who were treated with CAR T-cell constructs, and 73.9% (95%CI: 62.2–85.6%) in those patients who had any grade of clinical response ( Figure 1 ). A more prolonged follow-up is needed; however, despite high overall response rates and deep remission, a significant proportion of patients eventually relapse, so strategies to enhance CAR T-cell response durability are necessary, and MRD assessment with increasingly higher sensitivity methods should be guaranteed in future trials.
In addition, new relevant definitions are emerging regarding MM MRD. Using the ongoing POLLUX and CASTOR studies in relapsed/refractory patients, an exploratory analysis has found that “Sustained MRD negativity” (defined as the maintenance of MRD negativity in bone marrow confirmed ≥ 6 or ≥12 months apart) is associated with improved PFS compared with patients who obtain MRD-negative status but not MRD durability [ 95 ].
4. Something Blue (Reliable): Methods for BM MRD Assessment
Currently, the most common methods for BM MRD assessment are multiparametric flow cytometry (MFC) and high throughput/next generation sequencing (NGS), based on their reliability; these methods can identify disease in more than 90% of cases at a limit of detection of at least 10 −5 [ 94 ].
Thus far, MFC has been the most widely used method for MRD assessment in MM due to its widespread availability, hours-turnaround time, and relatively low cost. In addition, and in contrast to NGS, MFC provides information on BM cellular status and, with recently improved strategies, a disease-baseline analysis is not mandatory. Its main limitations are the lack of standardization among laboratories, a higher dependency on BM sample quality, and the need for fresh samples, preventing a “Send and Hold” approach [ 96 , 97 ].
MFC identifies a myeloma cell by gating those plasma cells (positive for CD138 and CD38) that express aberrantly specific markers (CD56, CD19, CD45, CD27, CD200, CD81, and CD117) and confirms its clonal nature by the restricted expression of intracytoplasmic κ or λ chains [ 98 ]. Most laboratories have performed MFC with a limit of detection of 10 −4 , which has been shown to be prognostic even among patients achieving CR [ 18 , 99 ].
Robillard et al. first communicated that their 7-color/8-antibody panel could reach a 10 −5 sensitivity, one order of magnitude larger than the previous 4-color immunophenotypic investigation of MM MRD ( Table 1 ) [ 100 ]. Next, a European consortium, EuroFlow, proposed its two 8-color tube strategy, which is considered the gold standard for flow MRD evaluation due to its high sensitivity (2 × 10 −6 ) and high level of standardization regarding processing, acquisition, and data analyzing procedures. It acquires information of 10 specific antigens by means of surface-only and surface/cytoplasmic-staining tubes. An anti-CD38 multiepitope antibody was incorporated in the Euroflow design to prevent the interference of anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies such as daratumumab [ 36 ]. Recently, reassuring results about the feasibility of a complete standardization among different centers were reported from a quality assessment program using fresh material from MM patients within the EMN02/HO95 MM trial involving four reference laboratories willing to commit to EuroFlow protocols [ 101 ].
To reduce costs and laboratory labor burden, different approaches testing a single tube strategy have been proposed. Roshal et al. compared the two 8-color tubes proposed by Euroflow with the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center single surface/cytoplasmic-staining 10-color tube [ 102 ]. The latter also gathers information from the 10 same antigens distributed in Euroflow’s tubes [ 98 , 103 ]. The overall concordance between the two tests was 98% and the authors concluded that both fulfilled the FDA-NCI guidelines [ 104 ], international consensus recommendations for myeloma flow cytometry-based MRD quality control [ 105 ], and the IMWG clinical response criteria for MRD negativity [ 14 ]. In fact, both updated versions of MFC have led to further enhancements in prognostication, as recently shown [ 53 , 102 ]. New 8-color single-tube approaches have recently been proposed, both achieving a sensitivity of 10 −5 . First, Duraclone, a streamlined approach for MRD detection in myeloma, showed excellent intra- and inter-assay accuracy. Nevertheless, as the original paper used a ninth antibody (CD117) and the strategy does not include the assessment of clonality, validation efforts recognized it as a good option, with some caution, as some discrepancies may arise [ 106 ]. In fact, greater confidence was recently added to the inclusion of light chain antibodies and permeabilization, where data are supported by the identification of a monotypic population with the same light chain as the monoclonal component [ 107 ]. Second, which is also as an alternative to more cost-intensive panels, the Freiburg group presented an MM MFC panel, and validated it in cell lines and in routinely assessed MM patients, both in and outside clinical trials [ 108 ].
Nevertheless, a common denominator for all groups is the emphasis placed on the quality of the sample as a key factor for MM flow MRD assessment. Not sending the first BM sample pulled or sending them in a different sequence for the same patient through evaluations, will lead to significant hemodilution and variability, in both cases raising the possibility of underestimating actual MRD [ 109 ]. As stressed in the recently published consensus effort for MRD performing and reporting harmonization, on a CR MM patient, MRD is the strongest prognostic information that can be acquired from BM aspiration. Thus, in these CR patient evaluations, they advocate for the first BM pull to be sent for MRD testing. If this is not possible, they recommend the next pull to be extracted and sent with a repositioning of the needle to reduce the likelihood of hemodilution [ 110 ]. Other strategies, such as functional imaging and liquid biopsy, which may be complementary and useful to resolve false-negative MRD evaluations due to BM sample hemodilution or spatial heterogeneity, are discussed below.
High Throughput Sequencing. The use of NGS in hematology has been a major advance not only in diagnosis and prognosis, but also in the follow-up of MRD in different neoplasms. Speaking of MM, the use of NGS has seen rapid implementation, since it was only in 2011 when the first genetic data on MM emanating from NGS techniques were published [ 111 ]; only a few years later, the FDA approved the use of these techniques for the monitoring of MM MRD [ 112 ]. Therefore, the implementation of NGS has not only allowed a deeper and more detailed knowledge of MM underpinning genetics, but it has also had a significant impact on the diagnosis and prognosis of the disease by enabling a precise MRD measurement in the BM, either during or after MM treatment.
Currently, for the detection of MM sequencing MRD, the main molecular target is the clonal rearrangement of the immunoglobulin gene. Initially, the evaluation of MRD at the molecular level was assessed by multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) of the IGH locus with consensus primers, followed primarily by direct Sanger sequencing [ 113 ]. By definition, Sanger sequencing is not the most suitable technique for MRD assessment because of its low sensitivity, as it also amplifies normal B cells, but it must be understood in a historical context, where MRD evaluation was performed at any given time with the most sensitive techniques available. To improve the limit of detection, the allele-specific-oligonucleotide PCR (ASO-PCR) technique, which consists of a real-time PCR with primers and probes specific for a given region of the IGH gene, started being used [ 114 ]. Compared to Sanger sequencing, ASO-PCR greatly increases the threshold (to 10 −5 ), but it is not without limitations. Although it is highly sensitive, ASO-PCR is not a specific technique. Since the amplified region is an area in which there is a high rate of somatic hypermutation, it prevents the correct annealing of the probes used in an ASO-PCR assay, allowing the identification of a molecular marker in only 50–60% of patients.
The recent implementation of NGS after PCR with consensus primers, which results in the sequencing of all PCR products, has overcome the aforementioned technical problems, and has resulted in an approach with both high sensitivity (of 10 −6 ) and high specificity [ 115 ]. According to IMWG criteria, sequencing MRD negativity is defined as the absence of clonal plasma cells (less than 2 identical sequencing reads) on BM aspirate by NGS, using a validated method with a minimum sensitivity threshold of 10 −5 or higher [ 14 ]. Numerous works have not only confirmed that NGS sequencing is a powerful tool for the detection of MRD, but also that sequencing MRD negativity constitutes a strong prognostic factor [ 47 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 95 , 116 ].
In conclusion, despite not being as widespread as MFC in clinical practice, NGS is nevertheless a reliable, sensitive, and reproducible technique for MM MRD evaluation, and it will be increasingly implemented in clinical practice.
5. Something Borrowed: Functional Imaging and Liquid Biopsy
18 F-Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET) was first introduced in the lymphoma field in the early 1990s. Shortly thereafter, multimodal FDG-PET/computed tomography (CT) was shown to overpass FDG-PET and CT when performed separately by combining functional and morphologic data, and it changed patient care. Currently, FDG-PET/CT constitutes the most valuable imaging technique for staging, treatment response assessment, and monitoring of the majority of lymphoid neoplasms. Imaging techniques have played a key role in the diagnosis of patients suspecting plasma cell disorders. However, the transition from classic radiographic skeletal surveys to more modern imaging methods has been more gradual in MM [ 117 ].
The skeleton is affected in up to 80% of MM patients at diagnosis, and roughly 10% of them have focal lesions (FL) and extramedullary disease (EMD). Furthermore, an incidence of EMD of 9% during disease course has been reported [ 118 ]. With respect to initial diagnostic screening, there has been a consensus since the 2014 IMWG recommendations on using whole-body low dose CT (WBLDCT) over skeletal survey, due to its higher sensitivity [ 119 , 120 ]. Since then, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and, mainly, multimodal FDG-PET/CT, have been incorporated into diagnostic routines [ 121 ]. Despite positive results supporting BM MRD assessment in MM, plasma cell infiltration normally exerts a patchy pattern, and conventional skeletal screening may overlook up to 20–30% FL and EMD. MRI and PET/CT have been shown to be significant prognostic factors, and they complement BM response assessment. Accordingly, the IMWG 2016 defined the concept of “imaging plus MRD-negative” as the deepest category of response to be achieved, highlighting the relevance of image tools in the evaluation of the depth of response [ 14 ].
MRI is a sensitive method for detecting early focal lesions (FL) and diffuse infiltration patterns of the bone marrow by myeloma cells, with an impact on prognosis regarding the number of FL [ 122 ]. MRI should be recommended when WBLDCT is negative and a solitary bone plasmacytoma is suspected [ 123 ]. However, in terms of response assessment, MRI has shown high-false positive rates, revealing FL that are not necessarily active. New functional MRI techniques have been developed in order to improve MRI results [ 124 ]. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) examines the water movement at a cellular level within tissues. Limited water movements indicate high cellularity, while a rise in motion of water is related to low cellularity. This technique shows a sensitivity of 90% and a specificity of 93%, discriminating myelomatous from normal marrow [ 125 , 126 ]. Recent publications suggest that DW-MRI could be slightly superior to PET/CT in the assessment of the MRD. Furthermore, it has been recently reported a better PFS in patients with MRD negative and complete imaging response by DW-MRI. Concluding that these two techniques may be complementary for the definition of response [ 127 ].
FDG-PET/CT has been successfully incorporated in the diagnosis and follow-up of patients diagnosed with MM. Even though FDG-PET/CT has lower sensitivity compared to MRI for the detection of BM involvement, its specificity is higher, owing to its capacity to differentiate viable from non-viable lesions [ 128 ]. Additionally, data have been published regarding the prognostic value of FDG-PET/CT at the time of diagnosis and follow-up [ 129 , 130 ]. The IFM2009 trial showed equivalent efficacy for MRI and FDG-PET/CT in the detection of bone lesions at diagnosis. However, MRI did not show a correlation between normalization of images and improvement in PFS, while FDG-PET/CT proved its value regarding response evaluation [ 131 ]. Although follow-up assessment remains unclear, concerning image techniques, the IMWG recommends FDG-PET/CT when evaluating MRD status [ 123 ]. Tracers other than FDG, such as sodium 18 F-Fluoride (NaF), choline-based tracers, and 68 Ga-Pentixafor ligand, targeting CXCR4, are still under investigation. Early data suggest that choline-based PET/CT detects up to 75% more focal lesions than FDG-PET/CT. However, these results will need to be validated in further studies [ 132 ]. Regarding CXCR4, its interest is increased due to its potential theranostic applications, due to its role in disrupting the interaction of MM cells with the BM microenvironment [ 133 ]. Finally, immunePET is a novel diagnostic approach that is based on therapeutic antibodies targeting specific myeloma antigens. The most relevant is CD38, which is expressed on myeloma cells, and it is used as an anti-CD38 target. This antibody has been radiolabelled (Zr-89 and Copper-64), and it offers radio-immune PET imaging [ 134 ]. Studies in this field are needed in order to prove the applicability of these therapies and determine their contributions to MRD assessment.
Currently, the use of imaging techniques in the follow-up in all patients remains unclear, though the IMWG advocate for the use of FDG-PET/CT as a response assessment when evaluating MRD status. The application and interpretation of the results of these new imaging techniques need further evaluation.
A liquid biopsy is defined as the isolation and analysis of circulating tumor-derived components (mainly cells and/or nucleic acids) from bodily fluids, primarily blood. Developed in the solid tumor field, where accessibility to the tumor cell is quite limited, it has proven its usefulness in different areas such as early detection, risk stratification, and monitoring of response, changes to the tumor clonal dynamics, detection of mechanisms of resistance, and measurement of MRD [ 135 ]. Recently, the potentials benefits of a non-invasive technique for the periodic MRD assessment have raised awareness among MM caregivers [ 136 ]. The EuroFlow consortium recently reported that MRD, by means of detecting MM circulating cells, was present in 17% of patients in CR, identifying a subgroup of patients with a significant shorter PFS [ 137 ]. However, both this MFC and an NGS (detecting Ig gene rearrangements) study found that approximately 40% of patients displayed MRD in BM that was undetectable in PB [ 138 , 139 ], underscoring the need for additional analysis to refine the utility of blood in monitoring MM disease. Notably, assessing the presence of additional genomic markers, such as recurrent mutations and copy number variants, may expand the sensitivity of this approach. Of late, patients with MM have been successfully monitored by targeted sequencing for mutations in key driver genes such as KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, and TP53 [ 140 ]. On the other hand, copy number variations are detectable in the vast majority of MM patients, assessed by whole exome sequencing of cfDNA and circulating tumor cells (CTC) [ 141 ]. A higher level of cfDNA at diagnosis and a relevant decrease after initiating treatment have been related with poorer survival and prolonged PFS, respectively [ 142 ]. As cfDNA contains sequences released from different MM foci, it may be particularly suitable for MM with EMD, where the need for multiple biopsies and the spatial/temporal genomic heterogeneity may prevent precise characterization and monitoring [ 143 ].
6. A Silver Sixpence in Her Shoe: MRD Cost-Effectiveness
An abstract presented by Carlson et al. at the 2019 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting evaluated the cost-effectiveness of MRD assessment during maintenance treatment for MM patients [ 144 ]. Yearly NGS MRD evaluation was compared with no MRD testing. The researchers assumed that maintenance treatment would be stopped when MRD negativity was achieved. They set the cost of MRD assessment at USD 3636 per sample, the cost of maintenance therapy at USD 21,168 per month, and the cost of relapsed disease treatment at USD 27,422 per month. According to their model, MRD evaluation might save a mean of USD 1,156,600 over patient’s lifetime. A second analysis, communicated by the same group at the 2020 American Hematology Association (ASH) Annual Meeting, based on institutional data from an annual cohort of 198 MM patients, estimated an overall annual saving of USD 18,100,000 [ 145 ]. They also suggested that MRD assessment led to an improvement in patients’ quality of life due to a lower rate of overtreatment and, consequently, lower risk of treatment-related adverse events than in the group of patients with no MRD testing. Thus, although further works are needed, a risk-adapted maintenance strategy guided by MRD assessment may not only be adequate in terms of clinical efficacy but also favorable in terms of patient utility and institutional monetary benefit.
7. Conclusions
Clinical trials have recurrently showed that achieving a deep response with a BM free of residual disease confers a significant and relevant longer survival. The final purpose is to bring MRD to real world clinics (easy to use methods, out of tertiary centers) and use it to guide therapy strategies by “tapering” doses or even through the discontinuation of maintenance treatment for those patients with a sustained negative MRD (it may prove cost-effective).
This will require a large amount of data from the use of MRD in a variety of clinical contexts, which can only be obtained through collaborative efforts. In the targeted agent context, new challenges emerge. For instance, patients who are still in good partial response (VGPR) may achieve MRD negativity in the BM before the monoclonal component is cleared, even at a sensitivity of 10 −6 [ 64 ]. This disengagement of the traditional close parallelism between the monoclonal component and the myeloma cell burden in the BM, or “M-component lag”, is particularly evident in the setting of new immunotherapies, where CAR-T treatment has demonstrated rapid marrow clearance [ 146 ]. Thus, recommendations were issued to incorporate MRD testing in patients who achieve VGPR IMWG criteria [ 147 ]. Moreover, some voices are already questioning whether the multilayer response assessment is needed in the new agent era. Recent data from the Spanish group demonstrated, in cases with persistent MRD, that no added prognostic value was found by stratifying transplant-eligible MM patients, treated with optimal induction and consolidation, by the current IMWG criteria. Further, they showed plasma cell counts by morphology and serum-free light chain ratios were prognostically useless in patients with a negative immunofixation [ 148 ]. Thus, it can be anticipated that the new agent era will create new response criteria, giving more weight to MRD measurements. Current and past efforts on standardization of testing, harmonization of reporting, and incorporation as critical endpoint in clinical trials are solid building blocks for a long-lasting and successful MM and MRD association.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.
Conflicts of Interest
A.J. reports a grant from Gilead and consultancy honoraria from Novartis and Celgene, all outside of the submitted work. The rest of the authors have nothing to disclose.
References
1. Thorsteinsdottir S. Dickman P.W. Landgren O. Blimark C. Hultcrantz M. Turesson I. Björkholm M. Kristinsson S.Y. Dramatically improved survival in multiple myeloma patients in the recent decade: Results from a Swedish population-based study Haematologica 2018 103 e412 e415 10.3324/haematol.2017.183475 29567776 PMC6119139
2. Chapman P.B. Einhorn L.H. Meyers M.L. Saxman S. Destro A.N. Panageas K.S. Begg C.B. Agarwala S.S. Schuchter L.M. Ernstoff M.S. Phase III Multicenter Randomized Trial of the Dartmouth Regimen Versus Dacarbazine in Patients With Metastatic Melanoma J. Clin. Oncol. 1999 17 2745 10.1200/JCO.1999.17.9.2745 10561349
3. Zabell J. Docetaxel Plus Prednisone or Mitoxantrone Plus Prednisone for Advanced Prostate Cancer 50 Studies Every Urologist Should Know Oxford University Press Oxford, UK 2021 83 88 10.1093/med/9780190655341.003.0015
4. Anderson K.C. Auclair D. Kelloff G.J. Sigman C.C. Avet-Loiseau H. Farrell A.T. Gormley N.J. Kumar S.K. Landgren O. Munshi N.C. The Role of Minimal Residual Disease Testing in Myeloma Treatment Selection and Drug Development: Current Value and Future Applications Clin. Cancer Res. 2017 23 3980 3993 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-2895 28428191
5. Luskin M.R. Murakami M.A. Manalis S.R. Weinstock D.M. Targeting Minimal Residual Disease: A Path to Cure? Nat. Rev. Cancer 2018 18 255 263 10.1038/nrc.2017.125 29376520 PMC6398166
6. Stevens S.M. Something old, something new… Blood J. Am. Soc. Hematol. 2020 135 1307 1308 10.1182/blood.2020005119 32298440
7. George J.N. Management of Immune Thrombocytopenia—Something Old, Something New N. Engl. J. Med. 2010 363 1959 1961 10.1056/NEJMe1009141 21067388
8. Sekeres M.A. Treatment of MDS: Something old, something new, something borrowed Hematology 2009 2009 656 663 10.1182/asheducation-2009.1.656 20008251
9. Wolmark N. Rockette H. Fisher B. Wickerham D.L. Redmond C. Fisher E.R. Jones J. Mamounas E.P. Ore L. Petrelli N.J. The benefit of leucovorin-modulated fluorouracil as postoperative adjuvant therapy for primary colon cancer: Results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project protocol C-03 J. Clin. Oncol. 1993 11 1879 1887 10.1200/JCO.1993.11.10.1879 8410113
10. Frei I.E. Karon M. Levin R.H. Freireich E.J. Taylor R.J. Hananian J. Selawry O. Holland J.F. Hoogstraten B. Wolman I.J. The Effectiveness of Combinations of Antileukemic Agents in Inducing and Maintaining Remission in Children with Acute Leukemia Blood 1965 26 642 656 10.1182/blood.V26.5.642.642 5321112
11. Pieters R. de Groot-Kruseman H. Van der Velden V. Fiocco M. Berg H.V.D. de Bont E. Egeler R.M. Hoogerbrugge P. Kaspers G. Van der Schoot E. Successful Therapy Reduction and Intensification for Childhood Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia Based on Minimal Residual Disease Monitoring: Study ALL10 From the Dutch Childhood Oncology Group J. Clin. Oncol. 2016 34 2591 2601 10.1200/JCO.2015.64.6364 27269950
12. Soverini S. Bavaro L. De Benedittis C. Martelli M. Iurlo A. Orofino N. Sica S. Sorà F. Lunghi F. Ciceri F. Prospective assessment of NGS-detectable mutations in CML patients with nonoptimal response: The NEXT-in-CML study Blood 2020 135 534 541 10.1182/blood.2019002969 31877211
13. Hughes T. Ross D. Moving treatment-free remission into mainstream clinical practice in CML Blood 2016 128 17 23 10.1182/blood-2016-01-694265 27013442
14. Kumar S. Paiva B. Anderson K.C. Durie B. Landgren O. Moreau P. Munshi N. Lonial S. Bladé J. Mateos M.-V. International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma Lancet Oncol. 2016 17 e328 e346 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30206-6 27511158
15. Kapoor P. Kumar S.K. Dispenzieri A. Lacy M.Q. Buadi F. Dingli D. Russell S.J. Hayman S.R. Witzig T.E. Lust J.A. Importance of Achieving Stringent Complete Response After Autologous Stem-Cell Transplantation in Multiple Myeloma J. Clin. Oncol. 2013 31 4529 4535 10.1200/JCO.2013.49.0086 24248686 PMC3871514
16. Child J.A. Morgan G. Davies F. Owen R.G. Bell S.E. Hawkins K. Brown J. Drayson M. Selby P.J. High-Dose Chemotherapy with Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Rescue for Multiple Myeloma N. Engl. J. Med. 2003 348 1875 1883 10.1056/NEJMoa022340 12736280
17. Landgren O. Devlin S. Boulad M. Mailankody S. Role of MRD status in relation to clinical outcomes in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients: A meta-analysis Bone Marrow Transplant. 2016 51 1565 1568 10.1038/bmt.2016.222 27595280 PMC5571752
18. Munshi N.C. Avet-Loiseau H. Rawstron A. Owen R.G. Child J.A. Thakurta A. Sherrington P. Samur M.K. Georgieva A. Anderson K.C. Association of Minimal Residual Disease with Superior Survival Outcomes in Patients with Multiple Myeloma JAMA Oncol. 2017 3 28 35 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.3160 27632282 PMC5943640
19. Paiva B. Vidriales M.-B. Cerveró J. Mateo G. Pérez J.J. Montalbán M.A. Sureda A. Montejano L. Gutiérrez N.C. de Coca A.G. 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 10.1182/blood-2008-05-159624 18669875 PMC2581991
20. Davies F.E. Is molecular remission the goal of multiple myeloma therapy? Hematology 2017 2017 205 211 10.1182/asheducation-2017.1.205 29222257 PMC6142553
21. Gay F. Cerrato C. Petrucci M.T. Zambello R. Gamberi B. Ballanti S. Omedè P. Palmieri S. Troia R. Spada S. 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 10.1200/JCO.2019.37.15_suppl.8002
22. Palumbo A. Bringhen S. Kumar S.K. Lupparelli G. Usmani S. Waage A. Larocca A. van der Holt B. Musto P. Offidani M. Second primary malignancies with lenalidomide therapy for newly diagnosed myeloma: A meta-analysis of individual patient data Lancet Oncol. 2014 15 333 342 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70609-0 24525202
23. Takamatsu H. Yoroidaka T. Yamashita T. Murata R. Yoshihara K. Yoshihara S. Ueda M. Nakao S. Matsue K. Minimal residual disease assessment using EuroFlow in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who received carfilzomib+lenalidomide+dexamethasone (KRD) therapy Clin. Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2019 19 e184 10.1016/j.clml.2019.09.308
24. Munshi N.C. Avet-Loiseau H. Anderson K.C. Neri P. Paiva B. Samur M. Dimopoulos M. Kulakova M. Lam A. Hashim M. A large meta-analysis establishes the role of MRD negativity in long-term survival outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma Blood Adv. 2020 4 5988 5999 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020002827 33284948 PMC7724898
25. Rawstron A.C. Davies F.E. Dasgupta R. Ashcroft A.J. Patmore R. Drayson M.T. Owen R.G. Jack A.S. Child J.A. Morgan G.J. Flow cytometric disease monitoring in multiple myeloma: The relationship between normal and neoplastic plasma cells predicts outcome after transplantation Blood 2002 100 3095 3100 10.1182/blood-2001-12-0297 12384404
26. Rawstron A. Child J.A. De Tute R.M. Davies F. Gregory W.M. Bell S.E. Szubert A.J. Navarro-Coy N. Drayson M. Feyler S. 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 10.1200/JCO.2012.46.2119 23733781
27. Martín-Mateos M.-L. Oriol A. Martinez-Lopez J. Teruel A.-I. De La Guía A.L. López J. Bengoechea E. Pérez M. Martínez R. Palomera L. GEM2005 trial update comparing VMP/VTP as induction in elderly multiple myeloma patients: Do we still need alkylators? Blood 2014 124 1887 1893 10.1182/blood-2014-05-573733 25102853
28. Silvennoinen R. Lundan T. Kairisto V. Pelliniemi T.-T. Putkonen M. Anttila P. Huotari V. Mantymaa P. Siitonen S. Uotila L. Comparative analysis of minimal residual disease detection by multiparameter flow cytometry and enhanced ASO RQ-PCR in multiple myeloma Blood Cancer J. 2014 4 e250 10.1038/bcj.2014.69 25303369 PMC4220647
29. Korde N. Roschewski M. Zingone A. Kwok M. Manasanch E.E. Bhutani M. Tageja N. Kazandjian D. Mailankody S. Wu P. Treatment with Carfilzomib-Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone With Lenalidomide Extension in Patients With Smoldering or Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma JAMA Oncol. 2015 1 746 754 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.2010 26181891 PMC6662597
30. Paiva B.D.L. Chandia M. Puig N. Vidriales M.-B. Perez J.J. Corral L.L. Ocio E.M. Garcia-Sanz R. Gutierrez N. Jimenez-Ubieto A. The prognostic value of multiparameter flow cytometry minimal residual disease assessment in relapsed multiple myeloma Haematologica 2014 100 e53 e55 10.3324/haematol.2014.115162 25381128 PMC4803143
31. Ludwig H. Greil R. Masszi T. Spicka I. Shpilberg O. Hajek R. Dmoszynska A. Paiva B.D.L. Vidriales M.-B. Esteves G. Bortezomib, thalidomide and dexamethasone, with or without cyclophosphamide, for patients with previously untreated multiple myeloma: 5-year follow-up Br. J. Haematol. 2015 171 344 354 10.1111/bjh.13582 26153365 PMC4758383
32. Cohen O.C. Rabin N. Counsell N. Owen R.G. Popova B. Schofield O. Lyons-Lewis J. Rawstron A. Spence C. De Tute R.M. Bortezomib Consolidation Following Upfront ASCT for Multiple Myeloma Deepens Disease Response and MRD-Negative Rate without Compromising Response to Subsequent Bortezomib Salvage: Results of a Phase II Study Blood 2016 128 4508 10.1182/blood.V128.22.4508.4508
33. De Tute R.M. Rawstron A.C. Cairns D.A. Pawlyn C. Davies F.E. Collett C. Kaiser M.F. Jones J.R. Waterhouse A. Striha A. Impact of Minimal Residual Disease in Transplant Ineligible Myeloma Patients: Results from the UK NCRI Myeloma XI Trial Blood 2016 128 245 10.1182/blood.V128.22.245.245
34. Fukumoto K. Fujisawa M. Suehara Y. Narita K.-T. Usui Y. Takeuchi M. Matsue K. Prognostic impact of immunophenotypic complete response in patients with multiple myeloma achieving better than complete response Leuk. Lymphoma 2016 57 1 7 10.3109/10428194.2015.1121262 26764045
35. Solovev M. Mendeleeva L. Pokrovskaya O. Gemdzhian E. Galtseva I. Davydova J. Firsova M. Nareyko M. Abramova T. Savchenko V. Maintenance Therapy with Bortezomib in Patients with Multiple Myeloma (MM) after ASCT and Minimal Residual Disease (MRD) Haematologica 2017 102 531
36. Flores-Montero J. Sanoja-Flores L. Paiva B.D.L. Puig N. García-Sánchez O. Böttcher S. Van Der Velden V.H.J. Pérez-Morán J.-J. Vidriales M.-B. Garcia-Sanz R. Next Generation Flow for highly sensitive and standardized detection of minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma Leukemia 2017 31 2094 2103 10.1038/leu.2017.29 28104919 PMC5629369
37. Chakraborty R. Muchtar E. Kumar S.K. Jevremovic D. Buadi F.K. Dingli D. Dispenzieri A. Hayman S.R. Hogan W.J. Kapoor P. Impact of Post-Transplant Response and Minimal Residual Disease on Survival in Myeloma with High-Risk Cytogenetics Biol. Blood Marrow Transplant. 2017 23 598 605 10.1016/j.bbmt.2017.01.076 28115277
38. Popat R. De Tute R.M. Counsell N. De-Silva D. Phillips B. Cavenagh J.D. Adedayo T. Braganza N. Roddie C. Streetly M. Outcomes of Stratification to ASCT or Not Based on Depth of Response: Results of a Phase 2 Trial Assessing the Impact of Minimal Residual Disease (MRD) in Multiple Myeloma Patients with Deferred ASCT (PADIMAC) Blood 2017 130 1864
39. Oliva S. Bruinink D.H.O. Rihova L. D’Agostino M. Pantani L. Capra A. van der Holt B. Troia R. Petrucci M.T. Villanova T. Minimal residual disease assessment by multiparameter flow cytometry in transplant-eligible myeloma in the EMN02/HOVON 95 MM trial Blood Cancer J. 2021 11 1 9 10.1038/s41408-021-00498-0 34083504 PMC8175611
40. Austin M. Pawlyn C. Woods H. Sustained MRD Negativity at 12 Months Post-ASCT Predicts Outcomes for Myeloma Patients: A Real World Study EHA Library 2018 215626 2018
41. Clark C.A. Mosse C.A. Chen H. Byrne M. Chinratanalab W. Engelhardt B.G. Goodman S.A. Harrell S.L. Kassim A.A. Savani B.N. Prospective trial of minimal residual disease assessment by multiparametric flow cytometry for multiple myeloma in the era of bortezomib-based chemotherapy Bone Marrow Transplant. 2018 53 1589 1592 10.1038/s41409-018-0241-2 29915217
42. Gu J. Liu J. Chen M. Huang B. Li J. Longitudinal Flow Cytometry Identified “Minimal Residual Disease” (MRD) Evolution Patterns for Predicting the Prognosis of Patients with Transplant-Eligible Multiple Myeloma Biol. Blood Marrow Transplant. 2018 24 2568 2574 10.1016/j.bbmt.2018.07.040 30142420
43. Yong K. Hinsley S. De Tute R.M. Sherratt D. Brown S.R. Flanagan L. Williams C. Cavenagh J. Kaiser M. Rabin N.K. Maintenance with Carfilzomib Following Carfilzomib, Cyclophosphamide and Dexamethasone at First Relapse or Primary Refractory Multiple Myeloma (MM) on the Phase 2 Muk Five Study: Effect on Minimal Residual Disease Blood 2018 132 802 10.1182/blood-2018-99-116426
44. Shah G.L. Seier K. Devlin S.M. Chung D.J. Scordo M. Hultcrantz M. Korde N. Lendvai N. Lesokhin A.M. Mailankody S. Depth of Response and Outcomes in Patients with Multiple Myeloma Undergoing Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation Blood 2018 132 4619 10.1182/blood-2018-99-116014
45. Solovev M.V. Mendeleeva L.P. Firsova M.V. Galtseva I.V. Davydova J. Gemdzhian E.G. Savchenko V.G. Efficacy of Maintenance Therapy Following Auto-HSCT Depending on MRD Status in Patients with Multiple Myeloma Blood 2018 132 3432 10.1182/blood-2018-99-112790
46. Facon T. Lee J.H. Moreau P. Niesvizky R. Dimopoulos M. Hajek R. Pour L. Jurczyszyn A. Qiu L. Klippel Z. Carfilzomib or bortezomib with melphalan-prednisone for transplant-ineligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma Blood 2019 133 1953 1963 10.1182/blood-2018-09-874396 30819926
47. Avet-Loiseau H. Moreau P. Attal M. Hulin C. Arnulf B. Corre J. Garderet L. Karlin L. Lambert J. Macro M. Efficacy of daratumumab (DARA) + bortezomib/thalidomide/dexamethasone (D-VTd) in transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (TE NDMM) based on minimal residual disease (MRD) status: Analysis of the CASSIOPEIA trial J. Clin. Oncol. 2019 37 8017 10.1200/JCO.2019.37.15_suppl.8017
48. Li H. Li F. Zhou X. Mei J. Song P. An Z. Zhao Q. Guo X. Wang X. Zhai Y. Achieving minimal residual disease-negative by multiparameter flow cytometry may ameliorate a poor prognosis in MM patients with high-risk cytogenetics: A retrospective single-center analysis Ann. Hematol. 2019 98 1185 1195 10.1007/s00277-019-03609-x 30721336
49. Rossi G. Falcone A.P. Minervini M.M. De Cillis G.P. De Waure C. Sisti L.G. Giambra V. Valente D. Chiello V. Scalzulli P.R. Minimal residual disease and log-reduction of plasma cells are associated with superior response after double autologous stem cell transplant in younger patients with multiple myeloma Cytom. Part. B Clin. Cytom. 2018 96 195 200 10.1002/cyto.b.21755 30549231
50. Hahn T.E. Wallace P.K. Fraser R. Fei M. Tario J.D. Howard A. Zhang Y. Blackwell B. Brunstein C.G. Efebera Y.A. Minimal Residual Disease (MRD) Assessment before and after Autologous Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation (AutoHCT) and Maintenance for Multiple Myeloma (MM): Results of the Prognostic Immunophenotyping for Myeloma Response (PRIMeR) Study Biol. Blood Marrow Transplant. 2019 25 S4 S6 10.1016/j.bbmt.2018.12.687
51. Rasche L. Alapat D. Kumar M. Gershner G. McDonald J. Wardell C.P. Samant R. Van Hemert R. Epstein J. Williams A.F. Combination of flow cytometry and functional imaging for monitoring of residual disease in myeloma Leukemia 2018 33 1713 1722 10.1038/s41375-018-0329-0 30573775 PMC6586541
52. Alonso R. Cedena M.T. Gomez-Grande A. Ríos R. Moraleda J.M. Cabañas V. Moreno M.J. López-Jiménez J. Martin-Moro F. Sanz A. Imaging and bone marrow assessments improve minimal residual disease prediction in multiple myeloma Am. J. Hematol. 2018 94 853 861 10.1002/ajh.25507 31074033
53. Paiva B. Puig N. Cedena M.-T. Rosiñol L. Cordón L. Vidriales M.-B. Burgos L. Flores-Montero J. Sanoja-Flores L. Lopez-Anglada L. Measurable Residual Disease by Next-Generation Flow Cytometry in Multiple Myeloma J. Clin. Oncol. 2020 38 784 792 10.1200/JCO.19.01231 31770060
54. Swedin A. Lenhoff S. Olofsson T. Thuresson B. Westin J. Clinical utility of immunoglobulin heavy chain gene rearrangement identification for tumour cell detection in multiple myeloma Br. J. Haematol. 1998 103 1145 1151 10.1046/j.1365-2141.1998.01075.x 9886333
55. Bakkus M.H.C. Bouko Y. Samson D.D. Apperley J.J. Thielemans K.M. Van Camp B. Benner A.A. Goldschmidt H.H. Moos M.M. Cremer F.F. 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 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2004.05120.x 15327517
56. Martínez-Sánchez P. Montejano L. Sarasquete M.E. Garcia-Sanz R. Fernández-Redondo E. Ayala R. Montalbán M.A. Martínez R. Laraña J.G. Alegre A. 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 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2008.07263.x 18637804
57. Putkonen M. Kairisto V. Juvonen V. Pelliniemi T.-T. Rauhala A. Itälä-Remes M. Remes K. 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 10.1111/j.1600-0609.2010.01510.x 20722702
58. Korthals M. Sehnke N. Kronenwett R. Bruns I. Mau J. Zohren F. Haas R. Kobbe G. Fenk R. The Level of Minimal Residual Disease in the Bone Marrow of Patients with Multiple Myeloma before High-Dose Therapy and Autologous Blood Stem Cell Transplantation Is an Independent Predictive Parameter Biol. Blood Marrow Transplant. 2012 18 423 431 10.1016/j.bbmt.2011.07.002 21745451
59. Ferrero S. Ladetto M. Drandi D. Cavallo F. Genuardi E. Urbano M. Caltagirone S. Grasso M. Rossini F. Guglielmelli T. Long-term results of the GIMEMA VEL-03-096 trial in MM patients receiving VTD consolidation after ASCT: MRD kinetics’ impact on survival Leukemia 2014 29 689 695 10.1038/leu.2014.219 25027515
60. Gambella M. Omedé P. Spada S. Muccio V.E. Gilestro M. Saraci E. Grammatico S. LaRocca A. Conticello C. Bernardini A. Minimal residual disease by flow cytometry and allelic-specific oligonucleotide real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction in patients with myeloma receiving lenalidomide maintenance: A pooled analysis Cancer 2018 125 750 760 10.1002/cncr.31854 30561775
61. Sanchez-Vega B. Alonso R. Cuenca I. Barrio S. Ruiz-Heredia Y. Marin C. Rapado I. Jimenez C. Aguirre X. Ayala R.M. Prognostic Impact of Molecular Response Assessed by Next-Generation Sequencing in a Large Cohort of Multiple Myeloma Patients Blood 2016 128 3283 10.1182/blood.V128.22.3283.3283
62. Schinke C. Hoering A. Wang H. Carlton V. Thanandrarajan S. Deshpande S. Patel P. Molnar G. Susanibar S. Mohan M. The Prognostic Value of the Depth of Response in Multiple Myeloma Depends on the Time of Assessment, Risk Status and Molecular Subtype Haematologica 2017 102 e313 e316 10.3324/haematol.2017.165217 28522572 PMC5541885
63. Martinez-Lopez J. Sanchez-Vega B. Barrio S. Cuenca I. Ruiz-Heredia Y. Alonso R. Rapado I. Marin C. Cedena M.-T. Paiva B.D.L. Analytical and clinical validation of a novel in-house deep-sequencing method for minimal residual disease monitoring in a phase II trial for multiple myeloma Leukemia 2017 31 1446 1449 10.1038/leu.2017.58 28210002 PMC5467041
64. Perrot A. Lauwers-Cances V. Corre J. Robillard N. Hulin C. Chretien M.-L. Dejoie T. Maheo S. Stoppa A.-M. Pegourie B. Minimal residual disease negativity using deep sequencing is a major prognostic factor in multiple myeloma Blood 2018 132 2456 2464 10.1182/blood-2018-06-858613 30249784 PMC6284215
65. Mateos M.-V. Dimopoulos M.A. Cavo M. Suzuki K. Jakubowiak A. Knop S. Doyen C. Lucio P. Nagy Z. Kaplan P. Daratumumab plus Bortezomib, Melphalan, and Prednisone for Untreated Myeloma N. Engl. J. Med. 2018 378 518 528 10.1056/NEJMoa1714678 29231133
66. Avet-Loiseau H. San-Miguel J.F. Casneuf T. Iida S. Lonial S. Usmani S.Z. Spencer A. Moreau P. Plesner T. Weisel K. Evaluation of Sustained Minimal Residual Disease (MRD) Negativity in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM) Patients (Pts) Treated with Daratumumab in Combination with Lenalidomide Plus Dexamethasone (D-Rd) or Bortezomib Plus Dexamethasone (D-Vd): Analysis of Pollux and Castor Blood 2018 132 3272 10.1182/blood-2018-99-113177
67. Bahlis N. Facon T. Usmani S.Z. Kumar S.K. Plesner D.T. Orlowski R.Z. Touzeau C. Basu M.S. Nahi H. Hulin C. Daratumumab Plus Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone (D-Rd) Versus Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone (Rd) in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (NDMM) Ineligible for Transplant: Updated Analysis of Maia Blood 2019 134 1875 10.1182/blood-2019-123426
68. Moreau P. Masszi T. Grzasko N. Bahlis N.J. Hansson M. Pour L. Sandhu I. Ganly P. Baker B.W. Jackson S.R. Oral Ixazomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone for Multiple Myeloma N. Engl. J. Med. 2016 374 1621 1634 10.1056/NEJMoa1516282 27119237
69. Chari A. Martinez-Lopez J. Mateos M.-V. Bladé J. Benboubker L. Oriol A. Arnulf B. Rodriguez-Otero P. Pineiro L. Jakubowiak A. Daratumumab plus carfilzomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma Blood 2019 134 421 431 10.1182/blood.2019000722 31113777 PMC6676132
70. Voorhees P.M. Kaufman J.L. Laubach J.P. Sborov D.W. Reeves B. Rodriguez C. Chari A. Silbermann R. Costa L.J. Anderson L.D. Daratumumab, lenalidomide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone for transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: The GRIFFIN trial Blood 2020 136 936 945 10.1182/blood.2020005288 32325490 PMC7441167
71. Van De Donk N.W.C.J. Richardson P.G. Malavasi F. CD38 antibodies in multiple myeloma: Back to the future Blood 2018 131 13 29 10.1182/blood-2017-06-740944 29118010
72. Gandhi U.H. Cornell R.F. Lakshman A. Gahvari Z.J. McGehee E. Jagosky M.H. Gupta R. Varnado W. Fiala M.A. Chhabra S. Outcomes of patients with multiple myeloma refractory to CD38-targeted monoclonal antibody therapy Leukemia 2019 33 2266 2275 10.1038/s41375-019-0435-7 30858549 PMC6820050
73. Mikhael J. Treatment Options for Triple-class Refractory Multiple Myeloma Clin. Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2019 20 1 7 10.1016/j.clml.2019.09.621 31767529
74. Radocha J. van de Donk N. Weisel K. Monoclonal Antibodies and Antibody Drug Conjugates in Multiple Myeloma Cancers 2021 13 1571 10.3390/cancers13071571 33805481 PMC8037134
75. Zhou X. Einsele H. Danhof S. Bispecific Antibodies: A New Era of Treatment for Multiple Myeloma J. Clin. Med. 2020 9 2166 10.3390/jcm9072166 32659909 PMC7408718
76. Mikkilineni L. Kochenderfer J.N. CAR T cell therapies for patients with multiple myeloma Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2020 18 71 84 10.1038/s41571-020-0427-6 32978608
77. Heltai S. Ghia P. Scarfo’ L. Relevance of Minimal R W.; Du, J.; Jiang, H.; Cheng, Z.; Wei, R. Esidual Disease in the Era of Targeted Agents Cancer J. 2019 25 410 417 10.1097/PPO.0000000000000413 31764122
78. Kostopoulos I. Ntanasis-Stathopoulos I. Gavriatopoulou M. Tsitsilonis O.E. Terpos E. Minimal Residual Disease in Multiple Myeloma: Current Landscape and Future Applications with Immunotherapeutic Approaches Front. Oncol. 2020 10 10.3389/fonc.2020.00860 PMC7267070 32537439
79. Mohyuddin G.R. Rooney A. Balmaceda N. Aziz M. Sborov D.W. McClune B. Kumar S.K. Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy in multiple myeloma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 950 patients Blood Adv. 2021 5 1097 1101 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020004017 33606005 PMC7903229
80. Ramos C.A. Savoldo B. Torrano V. Ballard B. Zhang H. Dakhova O. Liu E. Carrum G. Kamble R.T. Gee A.P. Clinical responses with T lymphocytes targeting malignancy-associated κ light chains J. Clin. Investig. 2016 126 2588 2596 10.1172/JCI86000 27270177 PMC4922690
81. Brudno J.N. Maric I. Hartman S.D. Rose J.J. Wang M. Lam N. Stetler-Stevenson M. Salem D. Yuan C. Pavletic S. T Cells Genetically Modified to Express an Anti–B-Cell Maturation Antigen Chimeric Antigen Receptor Cause Remissions of Poor-Prognosis Relapsed Multiple Myeloma J. Clin. Oncol. 2018 36 2267 2280 10.1200/JCO.2018.77.8084 29812997 PMC6067798
82. Hu Y. Yanlei Z. Wei G. Hong C.A. Huang H. Potent Anti-Tumor Activity of Bcma CAR-T Therapy Against Heavily Treated Multiple Myeloma and Dynamics of Immune Cell Subsets Using Single-Cell Mass Cytometry Blood 2019 134 1859 10.1182/blood-2019-130341
83. Li C. Mei H. Hu Y. Guo T. Liu L. Jiang H. Tang L. Wu Y. Ai L. Deng J. A Bispecific CAR-T Cell Therapy Targeting Bcma and CD38 for Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Updated Results from a Phase 1 Dose-Climbing Trial Blood 2019 134 930 10.1182/blood-2019-130340
84. Yan Z. Cao J. Cheng H. Qiao J. Zhang H. Wang Y. Shi M. Lan J. Fei X. Jin L. A combination of humanised anti-CD19 and anti-BCMA CAR T cells in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: A single-arm, phase 2 trial Lancet Haematol. 2019 6 e521 e529 10.1016/S2352-3026(19)30115-2 31378662
85. Garfall A.L. Cohen A.D. Lacey S.F. Tian L. Hwang W.-T. Vogl D.T. Waxman A. Lancaster E. Nelson A.M. Ferthio R. Combination anti-BCMA and anti-CD19 CAR T cells as consolidation of response to prior therapy in multiple myeloma Blood 2019 134 Suppl. 1 1863 10.1182/blood-2019-131515
86. Cohen A.D. Garfall A.L. Stadtmauer E.A. Melenhorst J.J. Lacey S.F. Lancaster E. Vogl D.T. Weiss B.M. Dengel K. Nelson A. B cell maturation antigen-specific CAR T cells are clinically active in multiple myeloma J. Clin. Investig. 2019 129 2210 2221 10.1172/JCI126397 30896447 PMC6546468
87. Wang B.-Y. Zhao W.-H. Liu J. Chen Y.-X. Cao X.-M. Yang Y. Zhang Y.-L. Wang F.-X. Zhang P.-Y. Lei B. Long-Term Follow-up of a Phase 1, First-in-Human Open-Label Study of LCAR-B38M, a Structurally Differentiated Chimeric Antigen Receptor T (CAR-T) Cell Therapy Targeting B-Cell Maturation Antigen (BCMA), in Patients (pts) with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (RRMM) Blood 2019 134 579 10.1182/blood-2019-124953
88. Fu S.W. Du J. Jiang H. Cheng Z. Wei R. Yu K. Jiang S. He F. Fang H. Liu Y. Efficacy and Safety of CAR-T Therapy with Safety Switch Targeting Bcma for Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma in a Phase 1 Clinical Study Blood 2019 134 3154 10.1182/blood-2019-127608
89. Cowan A.J. Pont M. Duke Sather B. Turtle C.J. Till B.G. Nagengast A.M. Libby E.N. Becker P.S. Coffey D.G. Tuazon S.A. Efficacy and safety of fully human BCMA CAR T cells in combination with a gamma secretase inhibitor to increase BCMA surface expression in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma Blood 2019 134 Suppl. 1 204 10.1182/blood-2019-129405
90. Lin Y. Raje N.S. Berdeja J.G. Siegel D.S. Jagannath S. Madduri D. Liedtke M. Rosenblatt J. Maus M.V. Massaro M. Idecabtagene Vicleucel (ide-cel, bb2121), a BCMA-Directed CAR T Cell Therapy, in Patients with Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Updated Results from Phase 1 CRB-401 Study Blood 2020 136 26 27 10.1182/blood-2020-134324
91. Hao S. Jin J. Jiang S. Li Z. Zhang W. Yang M. Yu K. Wang W. Chen L. Meng H. Two-Year Follow-up of Investigator-Initiated Phase 1 Trials of the Safety and Efficacy of Fully Human Anti-Bcma CAR T Cells (CT053) in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma Blood 2020 136 27 28 10.1182/blood-2020-140156
92. Madduri D. Berdeja J.G. Usmani M.S.Z. Jakubowiak A. Agha M. Cohen A.D. Stewart M.A.K. Hari M.P. Htut M. O’Donnell E. CARTITUDE-1: Phase 1b/2 Study of Ciltacabtagene Autoleucel, a B-Cell Maturation Antigen-Directed Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Cell Therapy, in Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma Blood 2020 136 22 25 10.1182/blood-2020-136307
93. Kumar S.K. Baz R.C. Orlowski M.R.Z. Anderson J.L.D. Ma H. Shrewsbury M.A. Croghan M.K.A. Bilgi M.M. Kansagra A. Kapoor P. Results from Lummicar-2: A Phase 1b/2 Study of Fully Human B-Cell Maturation Antigen-Specific CAR T Cells (CT053) in Patients with Relapsed and/or Refractory Multiple Myeloma Blood 2020 136 28 29 10.1182/blood-2020-139802
94. Jiang H. Dong B. Gao L. Liu L. Ge J. He A. Du J.J. Li L. Lu J. Chen X. Clinical Results of a Multicenter Study of the First-in-Human Dual BCMA and CD19 Targeted Novel Platform Fast CAR-T Cell Therapy for Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma Blood 2020 136 25 26 10.1182/blood-2020-138614
95. Avet-Loiseau H. San-Miguel J. Casneuf T. Iida S. Lonial S. Usmani S.Z. Spencer A. Moreau P. Plesner T. Weisel K. Evaluation of Sustained Minimal Residual Disease Negativity with Daratumumab-Combination Regimens in Relapsed and/or Refractory Multiple Myeloma: Analysis of POLLUX and CASTOR J. Clin. Oncol. 2021 39 1139 1149 10.1200/JCO.20.01814 33513030 PMC8078259
96. Rawstron A.C. De Tute R.M. Haughton J. Owen R.G. Measuring disease levels in myeloma using flow cytometry in combination with other laboratory techniques: Lessons from the past 20 years at the Leeds Haematological Malignancy Diagnostic Service Cytom. Part. B Clin. Cytom. 2015 90 54 60 10.1002/cyto.b.21271 26147493
97. Mailankody S. Korde N. Lesokhin A.M. Lendvai N. Hassoun H. Stetler-Stevenson M. Landgren O. Minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma: Bringing the bench to the bedside Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2015 12 286 295 10.1038/nrclinonc.2014.239 25622976 PMC7712493
98. Flores-Montero J. De Tute R. Paiva B.D.L. Perez J.J. Böttcher S. Wind H. Sanoja L. Puig N. Lecrevisse Q. Vidriales M.-B. Immunophenotype of normal vs. myeloma plasma cells: Toward antibody panel specifications for MRD detection in multiple myeloma Cytom. Part. B Clin. Cytom. 2015 90 61 72 10.1002/cyto.b.21265 26100534
99. Lahuerta J.-J. Paiva B. Vidriales M.-B. Cordón L. Cedena M.-T. Puig N. Martinez-Lopez J. Rosiñol L. Gutierrez N. Martín-Ramos M.-L. Depth of Response in Multiple Myeloma: A Pooled Analysis of Three PETHEMA/GEM Clinical Trials J. Clin. Oncol. 2017 35 2900 2910 10.1200/JCO.2016.69.2517 28498784 PMC5568033
100. Robillard N. Béné M.C. Moreau P. Wuillème S. A single-tube multiparameter seven-colour flow cytometry strategy for the detection of malignant plasma cells in multiple myeloma Blood Cancer J. 2013 3 e134 10.1038/bcj.2013.33 23955589 PMC3763387
101. Bruinink D.H.O. Oliva S. Rihova L. Schmitz A. Gilestro M. Marvelde J.T. Kralova R. Høholt H. Broijl A. Johnsen H.E. Standardization of flow cytometric minimal residual disease assessment in international clinical trials. A feasibility study from the European Myeloma Network Haematologica 2020 106 1496 1499 10.3324/haematol.2020.267831 33054135 PMC8094105
102. Roshal M. Flores-Montero J.A. Gao Q. Koeber M. Wardrope J. Durie B.G.M. Dogan A. Orfao A. Landgren O. MRD detection in multiple myeloma: Comparison between MSKCC 10-color single-tube and EuroFlow 8-color 2-tube methods Blood Adv. 2017 1 728 732 10.1182/bloodadvances.2016003715 29296716 PMC5728052
103. Royston D.J. Gao Q. Nguyen N. Maslak P. Dogan A. Roshal M. Single-Tube 10-Fluorochrome Analysis for Efficient Flow Cytometric Evaluation of Minimal Residual Disease in Plasma Cell Myeloma Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 2016 146 41 49 10.1093/ajcp/aqw052 27402608 PMC6365913
104. Landgren O. Gormley N. Turley D. Owen R.G. Rawstron A. Paiva B.D.L. Barnett D. Arroz M. Wallace P. Durie B. Flow cytometry detection of minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma: Lessons learned at FDA-NCI roundtable symposium Am. J. Hematol. 2014 89 1159 1160 10.1002/ajh.23831 25132630
105. Oldaker T.A. Wallace P.K. Barnett D. Flow cytometry quality requirements for monitoring of minimal disease in plasma cell myeloma Cytom. Part. B Clin. Cytom. 2015 90 40 46 10.1002/cyto.b.21276 PMC5404813 26201282
106. Yoroidaka T. Narita K. Takamatsu H. Fujisawa M. Nakao S. Matsue K. Comparison of minimal residual disease detection in multiple myeloma between the DuraClone and EuroFlow methods Sci. Rep. 2021 11 1 8 10.1038/s41598-021-89761-9 34045494 PMC8160149
107. Bene M.C. Robillard N. Moreau P. Wuilleme S. Comparison of the Performance of Surface Alone or Surface Plus Cytoplasmic Approaches for the Assessment of Minimal Residual Disease in Multiparameter Flow Cytometry in Multiple Myeloma Blood 2019 134 1799 10.1182/blood-2019-130607
108. Dold S.M. Riebl V. Wider D. Follo M. Pantic M. Ihorst G. Duyster J. Zeiser R. Wäsch R. Engelhardt M. Validated single-tube multiparameter flow cytometry approach for the assessment of minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma Haematologica 2020 105 e523 10.3324/haematol.2019.238394 33054097 PMC7556664
109. Torlakovic E.E. Brynes R.K. Hyjek E. Lee S.-H. Kreipe H. Kremer M. McKenna R. Sadahira Y. Tzankov A. Reis M. ICSH guidelines for the standardization of bone marrow immunohistochemistry Int. J. Lab. Hematol. 2015 37 431 449 10.1111/ijlh.12365 25977137
110. Costa L.J. Derman B.A. Bal S. Sidana S. Chhabra S. Silbermann R. Ye J.C. Cook G. Cornell R.F. Holstein S.A. International harmonization in performing and reporting minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma trials Leukemia 2020 35 18 30 10.1038/s41375-020-01012-4 32778736
111. Chapman M.A. Lawrence M.S. Keats J. Cibulskis K. Sougnez C. Schinzel A.C. Harview C. Brunet J.-P. Ahmann G.J. Adli M. Initial genome sequencing and analysis of multiple myeloma Nature 2011 471 467 472 10.1038/nature09837 21430775 PMC3560292
112. ClonoSEQ Cleared for Residual Cancer Testing Cancer Discov. 2018 8 OF6 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-NB2018-136 30327352
113. Langerak A.W. Groenen P.J.T.A. Brüggemann M. Beldjord K. Bellan C. Bonello L. Boone E. Carter G.I. Catherwood M. Davi F. EuroClonality/BIOMED-2 guidelines for interpretation and reporting of Ig/TCR clonality testing in suspected lymphoproliferations Leukemia 2012 26 2159 2171 10.1038/leu.2012.246 22918122 PMC3469789
114. Puig N. Sarasquete M.E. Balanzategui A. Martínez J. Paiva B.D.L. García H. Fumero S. Jiménez C. Alcoceba M. Chillon M.C. Critical evaluation of ASO RQ-PCR for minimal residual disease evaluation in multiple myeloma. A comparative analysis with flow cytometry Leukemia 2013 28 391 397 10.1038/leu.2013.217 23860448
115. Martinez-Lopez J. Lahuerta J.J. Pepin F. González M. Barrio S. Ayala R. Puig N. Montalban M.A. Paiva B.D.L. Weng L. Prognostic value of deep sequencing method for minimal residual disease detection in multiple myeloma Blood 2014 123 3073 3079 10.1182/blood-2014-01-550020 24646471 PMC4023416
116. Kumar S.K. Facon T. Usmani S.Z. Plesner T. Orlowski R.Z. Touzeau C. Basu S. Bahlis N.J. Goldschmidt H. O’Dwyer M.E. Updated Analysis of Daratumumab Plus Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone (D-Rd) Versus Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone (Rd) in Patients with Transplant-Ineligible Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (NDMM): The Phase 3 Maia Study Blood 2020 136 24 26 10.1182/blood-2020-134847
117. Hillengass J. Moulopoulos L.A. Delorme S. Koutoulidis V. Mosebach J. Hielscher T. Drake M. Rajkumar S.V. Oestergaard B. Abildgaard N. Whole-body computed tomography versus conventional skeletal survey in patients with multiple myeloma: A study of the International Myeloma Working Group Blood Cancer J. 2017 7 e599 10.1038/bcj.2017.78 28841211 PMC5596388
118. Dimopoulos M. Imwg O.B.O.T. Terpos E. Comenzo R.L. Tosi P. Beksac M. Sezer O. Siegel D. Lokhorst H. Kumar S. International myeloma working group consensus statement and guidelines regarding the current role of imaging techniques in the diagnosis and monitoring of multiple Myeloma Leukemia 2009 23 1545 1556 10.1038/leu.2009.89 19421229
119. Rajkumar S.V. Dimopoulos M.A. Palumbo A. Blade J. Merlini G. Mateos M.-V. Kumar S. Hillengass J. Kastritis E. Richardson P. International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma Lancet Oncol. 2014 15 e538 e548 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70442-5 25439696
120. Manasanch E.E. Landgren O. Myeloma imaging: Time to move on! Leuk. Lymphoma 2015 57 1499 1500 10.3109/10428194.2016.1143941 27145898
121. Manasanch E.E. What to do with minimal residual disease testing in myeloma Hematol. 2014 Am. Soc. Hematol. Program. Book 2019 2019 137 141 10.1182/hematology.2019000080 PMC6913484 31808833
122. Walker R. Barlogie B. Haessler J. Tricot G. Anaissie E. Shaughnessy J.D. Jr. Epstein J. Van Hemert R. Erdem E. Hoering A. Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Multiple Myeloma: Diagnostic and Clinical Implications J. Clin. Oncol. 2007 25 1121 1128 10.1200/JCO.2006.08.5803 17296972
123. Hillengass J. Usmani S. Rajkumar S.V. Durie B.G.M. Mateos M.-V. Lonial S. Joao C. Anderson K.C. Garcia-Sanz R. Riva E. International myeloma working group consensus recommendations on imaging in monoclonal plasma cell disorders Lancet Oncol. 2019 20 e302 e312 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30309-2 31162104
124. Jamet B. Zamagni E. Nanni C. Bailly C. Carlier T. Touzeau C. Michaud A.-V. Moreau P. Bodet-Milin C. Kraeber-Bodere F. Functional Imaging for Therapeutic Assessment and Minimal Residual Disease Detection in Multiple Myeloma Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020 21 5406 10.3390/ijms21155406 32751375 PMC7432032
125. Messiou C. Kaiser M. Whole body diffusion weighted MRI—A new view of myeloma Br. J. Haematol. 2015 171 29 37 10.1111/bjh.13509 26013304 PMC4737237
126. Zamagni E. Tacchetti P. Barbato S. Cavo M. Role of Imaging in the Evaluation of Minimal Residual Disease in Multiple Myeloma Patients J. Clin. Med. 2020 9 3519 10.3390/jcm9113519 PMC7692446 33142671
127. Belotti A. Ribolla R. Cancelli V. Villanacci A. Angelini V. Ferrari S. Peli A. Cattaneo C. Chiarini M. Grazioli L. External Validation of Diffusion Weighted Whole Body MRI (DW-MRI) Response Assessment Category (RAC) Criteria Proposed By the Myeloma Response Assessment and Diagnosis System (MY-RADS) Imaging Recommendations: Prognostic Role of Imaging Response after Transplant in Multiple Myeloma and Comparison with MRD Evaluation by Flow Cytometry Blood 2020 136 41 42 10.1182/blood-2020-135969
128. Gariani J. Westerland O. Natas S. Verma H. Cook G. Goh V. Comparison of whole body magnetic resonance imaging (WBMRI) to whole body computed tomography (WBCT) or 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/CT (18 F-FDG PET/CT) in patients with myeloma: Systematic review of diagnostic performance Crit. Rev. Oncol. 2018 124 66 72 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2018.02.012 29548488
129. Zamagni E. Patriarca F. Nanni C. Zannetti B. Englaro E. Pezzi A. Tacchetti P. Buttignol S. Perrone G. Brioli A. 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 10.1182/blood-2011-06-361386 21900189
130. Usmani S.Z. Mitchell A. Waheed S. Crowley J. Hoering A. Petty N. Brown T. Bartel T. Anaissie E. Van Rhee F. Prognostic implications of serial 18-fluoro-deoxyglucose emission tomography in multiple myeloma treated with total therapy Blood 2013 121 1819 1823 10.1182/blood-2012-08-451690 23305732 PMC3591801
131. Moreau P. Attal M. Caillot D. Macro M. Karlin L. Garderet L. Facon T. Benboubker L. Escoffre-Barbe M. Stoppa A.-M. 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 2918 10.1200/jco.2017.72.2975 28686535 PMC5578392
132. Rasch S. Lund T. Asmussen J. Nielsen A.L. Larsen R.F. Andersen M. Abildgaard N. Multiple Myeloma Associated Bone Disease Cancers 2020 12 2113 10.3390/cancers12082113 PMC7465468 32751464
133. Herrmann K. Lapa C. Wester H.-J. Schottelius M. Schiepers C. Eberlein U. Bluemel C. Keller U. Knop S. Kropf S. Biodistribution and Radiation Dosimetry for the Chemokine Receptor CXCR4-Targeting Probe 68Ga-Pentixafor J. Nucl. Med. 2015 56 410 416 10.2967/jnumed.114.151647 25698782
134. Pandit-Taskar N. Functional Imaging Methods for Assessment of Minimal Residual Disease in Multiple Myeloma: Current Status and Novel ImmunoPET Based Methods Semin. Hematol. 2018 55 22 32 10.1053/j.seminhematol.2018.02.009 29759149 PMC7549432
135. Siravegna G. Marsoni S. Siena S. Bardelli A. Integrating liquid biopsies into the management of cancer Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2017 14 531 548 10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.14 28252003
136. Ogawa M. Yokoyama K. Imoto S. Tojo A. Role of Circulating Tumor DNA in Hematological Malignancy Cancers 2021 13 2078 10.3390/cancers13092078 33923024 PMC8123338
137. Sanoja-Flores L. Flores-Montero J. Puig N. Contreras-Sanfeliciano T. Pontes R. Corral-Mateos A. García-Sánchez O. Díez-Campelo M. De Magalhães R.J.P. García-Martín L. Blood monitoring of circulating tumor plasma cells by next generation flow in multiple myeloma after therapy Blood 2019 134 2218 2222 10.1182/blood.2019002610 31697808 PMC6966491
138. Mazzotti C. Buisson L. Maheo S. Perrot A. Chretien M.-L. Leleu X. Hulin C. Manier S. Hébraud B. Roussel M. Myeloma MRD by deep sequencing from circulating tumor DNA does not correlate with results obtained in the bone marrow Blood Adv. 2018 2 2811 2813 10.1182/bloodadvances.2018025197 30355580 PMC6234381
139. Sanoja-Flores L. Flores-Montero J. Garcés J.J. Paiva B. Puig N. García-Mateo A. García-Sánchez O. Corral-Mateos A. Burgos L. Blanco E. Next generation flow for minimally-invasive blood characterization of MGUS and multiple myeloma at diagnosis based on circulating tumor plasma cells (CTPC) Blood Cancer J. 2018 8 1 11 10.1038/s41408-018-0153-9 30455467 PMC6242818
140. Mithraprabhu S. Khong T. Ramachandran M. Chow A. Klarica D. Mai L. Walsh S. Broemeling D. Marziali A. Wiggin M. Circulating tumour DNA analysis demonstrates spatial mutational heterogeneity that coincides with disease relapse in myeloma Leukemia 2016 31 1695 1705 10.1038/leu.2016.366 27899805
141. Manier S. Park J. Capelletti M. Bustoros M. Freeman S. Ha G. Rhoades J. Liu C.J. Huynh D. Reed S. Whole-exome sequencing of cell-free DNA and circulating tumor cells in multiple myeloma Nat. Commun. 2018 9 1 11 10.1038/s41467-018-04001-5 29703982 PMC5923255
142. Mithraprabhu S. Morley R. Khong T. Kalff A. Bergin K. Hocking J. Savvidou I. Bowen K.M. Ramachandran M. Choi K. Monitoring tumour burden and therapeutic response through analysis of circulating tumour DNA and extracellular RNA in multiple myeloma patients Leukemia 2019 33 2022 2033 10.1038/s41375-019-0469-x 30992504
143. Mithraprabhu S. Sirdesai S. Chen M. Khong T. Spencer A. Circulating Tumour DNA Analysis for Tumour Genome Characterisation and Monitoring Disease Burden in Extramedullary Multiple Myeloma Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018 19 1858 10.3390/ijms19071858 PMC6073672 29937522
144. Carlson J.J. Eckert B. Zimmerman M. Cost-effectiveness of next-generation sequencing minimal residual disease testing during maintenance treatment for multiple myeloma J. Clin. Oncol. 2019 37 e19529 10.1200/JCO.2019.37.15_suppl.e19529
145. Carlson M.J.J. Zimmermann M.M. Demaree A. Hewitt T. Eckert B. Nooka M.A. Cost-Effectiveness of Implementing Clonoseq NGS-MRD Testing Using the Emory MRD Decision Protocol in Multiple Myeloma Blood 2020 136 25 26 10.1182/blood-2020-143234
146. Munshi N.C. Anderson J.L.D. Shah N. Jagannath S. Berdeja J.G. Lonial S. Raje N.S. Siegel D.S.D. Lin Y. Oriol A. Idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel; bb2121), a BCMA-targeted CAR T-cell therapy, in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM): Initial KarMMa results J. Clin. Oncol. 2020 38 8503 10.1200/JCO.2020.38.15_suppl.8503
147. Landgren O. Rustad E.H. Meeting report: Advances in minimal residual disease testing in multiple myeloma Adv. Cell Gene Ther. 2018 2 e26 10.1002/acg2.26
148. Ubieto A.J. Paiva B. Puig N. Cedena M.-T. Martinez-Lopez J. Oriol A. Blanchard M.-J. Tamayo R.R. Sánchez J.M. Martinez R. Validation of the IMWG standard response criteria in the PETHEMA/GEM2012MENOS65 study: Are these times of change? Blood 2021 10.1182/blood.2021012319