Clinical Value of Peripheral Residual Disease (PRD) and Measurable Residual Disease (MRD) in Newly Diagnosed Elderly Patients in the GEM2017FIT Trial

Introduction: In elderly patients (pts) with multiple myeloma (MM), MRD evaluation by NGF has shown to surpass conventional responses to predict patient outcomes with even a higher clinical impact as compared to younger transplant eligible cases. However, integrating MRD into routine clinical practice in these pts can be particularly challenging due to the need of a bone marrow (BM) aspiration. Our study investigates the clinical value of PRD assessed by mass-spec (MS) and MRD by Next Generation Flow in non-transplant eligible pts included in the GEM2017FIT trial. Patients and methods: GEM2017FIT is an open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial for fit pts with newly diagnosed MM aged between 65 and 80 years. Fitness was assessed with the GAH scale and eligible pts required ≤42 points. Pts randomly received 18 induction cycles of either VMP-Rd (arm1, control) or KRd (arm 2a) or Dara-KRd in a 1:1:1 ratio; those pts not treated with Dara during induction (arms 1 and 2a) received 4 cycles of consolidation with Dara-Rd. After induction and consolidation, pts were randomized to receive maintenance with Dara-R or observation (after stratification according to the MRD status by NGF). VMP and Rd were administered at conventional doses. In the Kz-based regimens, Kz was given twice weekly at a dose of 36mg/m2 during cycles 1-2 and at 56 mg/m2 from cycle 3 onwards. Dara was initially planned as iv. but subsequently switched to sc, and always administered with the conventional dose and schedule. The primary endpoint of the study was the rate of MRD negativity post-induction (sensitivity 10-5). Secondary endpoints included standard responses, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Besides, we have used Quantitative Immunoprecipitation Mass Spectrometry with anti IgG/A/M, total k and total l beads to assess PRD post-induction using the EXENT® Analyzer (The Binding Site, part of Thermo Fisher Scientific). Results: 230 pts who completed the 18 induction cycles were included in this study and analyzed for the primary endpoint using NGF and MS. Median age was 72 years (64-80), 48% were male, nearly one third had ISS 3 and 12% presented with extramedullary disease. PRD and MRD status (NGF with a sensitivity of 10-6) were associated with significant differences in PFS (p<0.0001, HR 0.29 and p<0.0001, HR 0.31, respectively). 79.6% of the results were concordant (25.2% [58/230] NGF+MS+, 54.3% [125/230] NGF-MS-) and 20.4% were discordant (8.7% [20/230] NGF-MS+, 11.7% [27/230] NGF+MS-). Taking NGF results as a reference, the negative and positive predictive values of MS were 82% and 74% (p<0.0001), respectively. When comparing PRD and MRD status (NGF-5) similar results were observed (p<0.0001, HR 0.29 [and p=0.0004, HR 0.32, respectively). When pts were stratified based on their GAH scale score, both PRD and MRD status were associated with significantly different PFS. For pts with GAH ≤20, the mPFS was not reached (NR) in the PRD- group compared to the PRD+ group (p=0.0021, HR 0.25), and the same result was observed for MRD (p=0.0074, HR 0.31). For patients with GAH >20, the mPFS was NR in the PRD- group compared to 34 months in the PRD+ group (p=0.0064, HR 0.31), and a similar outcome was observed for MRD (p=0.0044, HR 0.31). We also studied the value of both PRD and MRD according to the pts' cytogenetic risk. Both PRD and MRD were able to stratify pts with different PFS, with clear significance in standard risk pts (PRD: p=0.0049, HR 0.22; MRD: p=0.0051, HR 0.23) and those with del17/del17p/t(4;14)/t(14;16)/Gain/amp1q/del1p (PRD: p=0.0032, HR 0.33; MRD: p=0.0081, HR 0.38). Combining the cytogenetic risk with PRD or MRD status, we observed that PRD negative and standard risk pts had a very favorable outcome (mPFS NR) compared to PRD positive and high-risk pts (mPFS 34 months; p<0.0001 HR 0.12). The same tendency was observed for MRD- and standard risk pts vs MRD+ and high-risk pts (mPFS NR vs 36 months; p<0.0001; HR 0.12). Conclusions: In thiscohort of non-transplant eligible fit elderly pts with newly diagnosed MM, PRD and MRD assessment showed a significant clinical value in terms of PFS, both in the global cohort as well as in different risk groups based on fragility and cytogenetic risk. These findings suggest that the integration of PRD assessment into routine clinical practice may be beneficial for all elderly pts, independently of their specific risk features.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Blood
Published
2024-11-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2024-209748
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Colorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.28
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Clinical Value of Peripheral Residual Disease (PRD) and Measurable Residual Disease (MRD) in Newly Diagnosed Elderly Patients in the GEM2017FIT Trial

Alexia Suárez-Cabrera, Cristina Agulló, Enrique M. Ocio, Yolanda González‐Montes et al.
1 citations
Blood
Colorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
0.28
article

Clinical Value of Peripheral Residual Disease (PRD) and Measurable Residual Disease (MRD) in Newly Diagnosed Elderly Patients in the GEM2017FIT Trial

Alexia Suárez-Cabrera, Cristina Agulló, Enrique M. Ocio, Yolanda González‐Montes, Luis Felipe Casado Montero, Miguel Teodoro Hernández Garcia, Teresa Contreras, José Palacios, Jesús F. San Miguel, Mercedes Gironella, María‐Victoria Mateos, Joaquín Martínez‐López, Joan Bargay, Esther González García, Joan Bladé, S. Castro, María‐Teresa Cedena, Verónica González‐Calle, Noemí Puig, Pilar Delgado, Albert Oriol, Laura Rosiñol Dachs, Angel Ramirez, Anna Maria Sureda Balari, Valentín Cabañas Perianes, Jaime Pérez de Oteyza, Bruno Paiva, Sebastián Garzón, María‐Jesús Blanchard, Elena Prieto
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Introduction: In elderly patients (pts) with multiple myeloma (MM), MRD evaluation by NGF has shown to surpass conventional responses to predict patient outcomes with even a higher clinical impact as compared to younger transplant eligible cases. However, integrating MRD into routine clinical practice in these pts can be particularly challenging due to the need of a bone marrow (BM) aspiration. Our study investigates the clinical value of PRD assessed by mass-spec (MS) and MRD by Next Generation Flow in non-transplant eligible pts included in the GEM2017FIT trial. Patients and methods: GEM2017FIT is an open-label, randomized, phase 3 trial for fit pts with newly diagnosed MM aged between 65 and 80 years. Fitness was assessed with the GAH scale and eligible pts required ≤42 points. Pts randomly received 18 induction cycles of either VMP-Rd (arm1, control) or KRd (arm 2a) or Dara-KRd in a 1:1:1 ratio; those pts not treated with Dara during induction (arms 1 and 2a) received 4 cycles of consolidation with Dara-Rd. After induction and consolidation, pts were randomized to receive maintenance with Dara-R or observation (after stratification according to the MRD status by NGF). VMP and Rd were administered at conventional doses. In the Kz-based regimens, Kz was given twice weekly at a dose of 36mg/m2 during cycles 1-2 and at 56 mg/m2 from cycle 3 onwards. Dara was initially planned as iv. but subsequently switched to sc, and always administered with the conventional dose and schedule. The primary endpoint of the study was the rate of MRD negativity post-induction (sensitivity 10-5). Secondary endpoints included standard responses, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Besides, we have used Quantitative Immunoprecipitation Mass Spectrometry with anti IgG/A/M, total k and total l beads to assess PRD post-induction using the EXENT® Analyzer (The Binding Site, part of Thermo Fisher Scientific). Results: 230 pts who completed the 18 induction cycles were included in this study and analyzed for the primary endpoint using NGF and MS. Median age was 72 years (64-80), 48% were male, nearly one third had ISS 3 and 12% presented with extramedullary disease. PRD and MRD status (NGF with a sensitivity of 10-6) were associated with significant differences in PFS (p<0.0001, HR 0.29 and p<0.0001, HR 0.31, respectively). 79.6% of the results were concordant (25.2% [58/230] NGF+MS+, 54.3% [125/230] NGF-MS-) and 20.4% were discordant (8.7% [20/230] NGF-MS+, 11.7% [27/230] NGF+MS-). Taking NGF results as a reference, the negative and positive predictive values of MS were 82% and 74% (p<0.0001), respectively. When comparing PRD and MRD status (NGF-5) similar results were observed (p<0.0001, HR 0.29 [and p=0.0004, HR 0.32, respectively). When pts were stratified based on their GAH scale score, both PRD and MRD status were associated with significantly different PFS. For pts with GAH ≤20, the mPFS was not reached (NR) in the PRD- group compared to the PRD+ group (p=0.0021, HR 0.25), and the same result was observed for MRD (p=0.0074, HR 0.31). For patients with GAH >20, the mPFS was NR in the PRD- group compared to 34 months in the PRD+ group (p=0.0064, HR 0.31), and a similar outcome was observed for MRD (p=0.0044, HR 0.31). We also studied the value of both PRD and MRD according to the pts' cytogenetic risk. Both PRD and MRD were able to stratify pts with different PFS, with clear significance in standard risk pts (PRD: p=0.0049, HR 0.22; MRD: p=0.0051, HR 0.23) and those with del17/del17p/t(4;14)/t(14;16)/Gain/amp1q/del1p (PRD: p=0.0032, HR 0.33; MRD: p=0.0081, HR 0.38). Combining the cytogenetic risk with PRD or MRD status, we observed that PRD negative and standard risk pts had a very favorable outcome (mPFS NR) compared to PRD positive and high-risk pts (mPFS 34 months; p<0.0001 HR 0.12). The same tendency was observed for MRD- and standard risk pts vs MRD+ and high-risk pts (mPFS NR vs 36 months; p<0.0001; HR 0.12). Conclusions: In thiscohort of non-transplant eligible fit elderly pts with newly diagnosed MM, PRD and MRD assessment showed a significant clinical value in terms of PFS, both in the global cohort as well as in different risk groups based on fragility and cytogenetic risk. These findings suggest that the integration of PRD assessment into routine clinical practice may be beneficial for all elderly pts, independently of their specific risk features.

BloodVol. 144(Supplement 1)
Universidad San Pablo CEU (ES), Universidad Complutense de Madrid (ES), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ES), Universidad de Cantabria (ES), Universidad de Salamanca (ES), Hospital Universitario de Canarias (ES), Hospital de Sant Pau (ES), Fundación Pethema (ES), Research Institute Hospital 12 de Octubre (ES), Institut d'Investigació Biomédica de Bellvitge (ES), Hospital Son Llatzer (ES), Josep Carreras Leukaemia Research Institute (ES), National Library of Catalonia (ES), Hospital Universitario de Gran Canaria Doctor Negrín (ES), Grupo Español de Trasplante Hematopoyético y Terapia Celular (ES), Complejo Hospitalario de Salamanca (ES), Marqués de Valdecilla University Hospital (ES), Hospital Universitario 12 De Octubre (ES), Institut Català d'Oncologia (ES), Instituto de Investigación Marqués de Valdecilla (ES), Hospital Universitario Miguel Servet (ES), Hospital Clínic de Barcelona (ES), Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (US), Vall d'Hebron Hospital Universitari (ES), Hospital Universitario Fundación Jiménez Díaz (ES), Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias (ES), Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Salamanca (ES), Clinica Universidad de Navarra (ES), Centro de Investigación del Cáncer (ES), Duran i Reynals Hospital (ES), Spanish Society of Hematology and Hemotherapy (ES), Lymphoma Study Association (FR), Hospital Universitario De Cabueñes (ES), Hospital Universitario Virgen de la Arrixaca (ES), Hospital Jerez Puerta del Sur (ES), Hospital Universitari de Girona Doctor Josep Trueta (ES), Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Cáncer (ES), Consorci Institut D'Investigacions Biomediques August Pi I Sunyer (ES), Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal (ES), European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (FR), Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Toledo (ES), Universitat de Barcelona (ES), Universidad de Murcia (ES), Universidad de Navarra (ES)
Openalex Percentile: Top 33%
Colorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
0.28
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.