TY - JOUR
T1 - International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma
AU - Kumar, Shaji
AU - Paiva, Bruno
AU - Anderson, Kenneth C.
AU - Durie, Brian
AU - Landgren, Ola
AU - Moreau, Philippe
AU - Munshi, Nikhil
AU - Lonial, Sagar
AU - Bladé, Joan
AU - Mateos, Maria Victoria
AU - Dimopoulos, Meletios
AU - Kastritis, Efstathios
AU - Boccadoro, Mario
AU - Orlowski, Robert
AU - Goldschmidt, Hartmut
AU - Spencer, Andrew
AU - Hou, Jian
AU - Chng, Wee Joo
AU - Usmani, Saad Z.
AU - Zamagni, Elena
AU - Shimizu, Kazuyuki
AU - Jagannath, Sundar
AU - Johnsen, Hans E.
AU - Terpos, Evangelos
AU - Reiman, Anthony
AU - Kyle, Robert A.
AU - Sonneveld, Pieter
AU - Richardson, Paul G.
AU - McCarthy, Philip
AU - Ludwig, Heinz
AU - Chen, Wenming
AU - Cavo, Michele
AU - Harousseau, Jean Luc
AU - Lentzsch, Suzanne
AU - Hillengass, Jens
AU - Palumbo, Antonio
AU - Orfao, Alberto
AU - Rajkumar, S. Vincent
AU - Miguel, Jesus San
AU - Avet-Loiseau, Herve
N1 - Funding Information:
SK reports personal fees for Skyline Diagnostics, Noxxon Pharma, and Kessios Pharma and serves on advisory boards for Takeda, Celgene, Janssen, Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck. KCA reports personal fees from Celgene, Millennium, Gilead, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. BP has been a consultant for Sanofi, serves on advisory boards and has received honoraria for Takeda, Celgene, Amgen, and Janssen, and reports grants from Celgene, Takeda Sanofi, and EngMab. PM reports personal fees from Celgene, Takeda, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Amgen. NM has been a consultant for Celgene, Merck, Takeda, Pfizer, Amgen, and Janssen. M-VM reports personal fees from Janssen, Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Amgen. MD has received personal fees from Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, and Novartis. EK has received honoraria from Janssen, Takeda, and Onyx. MB has received honoraria from Celgene, Onyx, Janssen-Cilag, Sanofi, and Amgen. RO reports grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Takeda, Onyx, and Spectrum Pharma, and serves on advisory boards for Array BioPharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, FORMA Therapeutics, Janssen, Takeda, and Onyx. HG reports grants and personal fees from Celgene, Janssen, Chugai, Novartis, Onyx, Millennium, and reports grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, and Takeda. SJ serves on advisory boards for Celgene, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck. ET has received honoraria from Amgen, Celgene, Genesis, Takeda, Novartis, and Janssen-Cilag, serves on advisory boards for Amgen, Takeda, and Janssen-Cilag, and reports grants from Genesis, Amgen, and Janssen-Cilag. AR reports personal fees from Celgene. PS reports grants and personal fees from Celgene, Janssen, and Amgen, and reports grants from Karyopharm, Pharmamar, and Oncopeptide. PGR serves on advisory boards for Celgene, Takeda, and Johnson & Johnson. PM reports grants from Celgene and reports personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Takeda, Karyopharm, Sanofi, Janssen, and The Binding Site. HL reports grants from Takeda and reports fees from BMS, Janssen-Cilag, Celgene, Onyx, and Boehringer Ingelheim. MC reports personal fees from Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, Takeda, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. SL serves on advisory boards for Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Celgene. JH reports grants from Novartis and Sanofi and reports personal fees from Amgen, Celgene, and Janssen. AP reports personal fees from Amgen, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genmab A/S, Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Takeda, Sanofi, and Merck. JSM serves on advisory boards for Celgene, Novartis, Onyx, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, and MSD. All other authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd
PY - 2016/8/1
Y1 - 2016/8/1
N2 - Treatment of multiple myeloma has substantially changed over the past decade with the introduction of several classes of new effective drugs that have greatly improved the rates and depth of response. Response criteria in multiple myeloma were developed to use serum and urine assessment of monoclonal proteins and bone marrow assessment (which is relatively insensitive). Given the high rates of complete response seen in patients with multiple myeloma with new treatment approaches, new response categories need to be defined that can identify responses that are deeper than those conventionally defined as complete response. Recent attempts have focused on the identification of residual tumour cells in the bone marrow using flow cytometry or gene sequencing. Furthermore, sensitive imaging techniques can be used to detect the presence of residual disease outside of the bone marrow. Combining these new methods, the International Myeloma Working Group has defined new response categories of minimal residual disease negativity, with or without imaging-based absence of extramedullary disease, to allow uniform reporting within and outside clinical trials. In this Review, we clarify several aspects of disease response assessment, along with endpoints for clinical trials, and highlight future directions for disease response assessments.
AB - Treatment of multiple myeloma has substantially changed over the past decade with the introduction of several classes of new effective drugs that have greatly improved the rates and depth of response. Response criteria in multiple myeloma were developed to use serum and urine assessment of monoclonal proteins and bone marrow assessment (which is relatively insensitive). Given the high rates of complete response seen in patients with multiple myeloma with new treatment approaches, new response categories need to be defined that can identify responses that are deeper than those conventionally defined as complete response. Recent attempts have focused on the identification of residual tumour cells in the bone marrow using flow cytometry or gene sequencing. Furthermore, sensitive imaging techniques can be used to detect the presence of residual disease outside of the bone marrow. Combining these new methods, the International Myeloma Working Group has defined new response categories of minimal residual disease negativity, with or without imaging-based absence of extramedullary disease, to allow uniform reporting within and outside clinical trials. In this Review, we clarify several aspects of disease response assessment, along with endpoints for clinical trials, and highlight future directions for disease response assessments.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84995917601&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84995917601&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30206-6
DO - 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30206-6
M3 - Review article
C2 - 27511158
AN - SCOPUS:84995917601
SN - 1470-2045
VL - 17
SP - e328-e346
JO - The Lancet Oncology
JF - The Lancet Oncology
IS - 8
ER -