Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34404440›Full record

ArticleJournal of hematology & oncology2021

Making clinical decisions based on measurable residual disease improves the outcome in multiple myeloma.

Joaquin Martinez-Lopez, Rafael Alonso, Sandy W Wong, Rafael Rios, Nina Shah, Yanira Ruiz-Heredia, Jose Maria Sanchez-Pina, Ricardo Sanchez, Natasha Bahri, Irene Zamanillo and 10 more

Open access · goldAbstract readLetterMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of hematology & oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. New Developments in Myeloma Treatment and Response Assessment.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Joaquin Martinez-Lopez *Hematology Department, Hospital 12 de Octubre i+12, CNIO, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain. jmarti01@ucm.es.ORCID 0000-0001-7908-0063
Rafael Alonso *Hematology Department, Hospital 12 de Octubre i+12, CNIO, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain.
Sandy W WongDepartment of Medicine, Division of Hematology-Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.
Rafael RiosHematology Department, Hospital Virgen de Las Nieves, Granada, Spain.
Nina ShahDepartment of Medicine, Division of Hematology-Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.
Yanira Ruiz-HerediaHematology Department, Hospital 12 de Octubre i+12, CNIO, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain.
Jose Maria Sanchez-PinaHematology Department, Hospital 12 de Octubre i+12, CNIO, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain.
Ricardo SanchezHematology Department, Hospital 12 de Octubre i+12, CNIO, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain.
Natasha BahriDepartment of Medicine, Division of Hematology-Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.
Irene ZamanilloHematology Department, Hospital 12 de Octubre i+12, CNIO, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain.
Maria PozaHematology Department, Hospital 12 de Octubre i+12, CNIO, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain.
Natalia BuenacheHematology Department, Hospital 12 de Octubre i+12, CNIO, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain.
Cristina EncinasHematology Department, Hospital General Univesitario Gregorio Marañon, Madrid, Spain.
Luis JuarezHematology Department, Hospital General Univesitario Gregorio Marañon, Madrid, Spain.
Fatima MirasHematology Department, Hospital 12 de Octubre i+12, CNIO, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain.
Luis ColladoMedicine Department, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain.
Santiago BarrioHematology Department, Hospital 12 de Octubre i+12, CNIO, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain.
Thomas MartinDepartment of Medicine, Division of Hematology-Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.
Maria Teresa Cedena *Hematology Department, Hospital 12 de Octubre i+12, CNIO, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain.
Jeffrey Wolf *Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology-Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.
University of California, San Francisco · USHospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón · ESUniversidad Complutense de Madrid · ESHospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The assessment of measurable residual disease (MRD) in bone marrow has proven of prognostic relevance in patients with multiple myeloma (MM). Nevertheless, and unlike other hematologic malignancies, the use of MRD results to make clinical decisions in MM has been underexplored to date. In this retrospective study, we present the results from a multinational and multicenter series of 400 patients with MRD monitoring during front-line therapy with the aim of exploring how clinical decisions made based on those MRD results affected outcomes. As expected, achievement of MRD negativity at any point was associated with improved PFS versus persistent MRD positivity (median PFS 104 vs. 45 months, p < 0.0001). In addition, however, 67 out of 400 patients underwent a clinical decision (treatment discontinuation, intensification or initiation of a new therapy) based on MRD results. Those patients in whom a treatment change was made showed a prolonged PFS in comparison with those 333 patients in which MRD results were not acted upon (respectively, mPFS 104 vs. 62 months, p = 0.005). In patients who achieved MRD negativity during maintenance (n = 186) on at least one occasion, stopping therapy in 24 patients vs. continuing in 162 did not alter PFS (mPFS 120 months vs. 82 months, p = 0.1). Most importantly, however, in patients with a positive MRD during maintenance (n = 214), a clinical decision (either intensification or change of therapy) (n = 43) resulted in better PFS compared to patients in whom no adjustment was made (n = 171) (mPFS NA vs. 39 months, p = 0.02). Interestingly, there were no significant differences when MRD was assessed by flow cytometry or by next-generation sequencing. Herein, we find that MRD is useful in guiding clinical decisions during initial therapy and has a positive impact on PFS in MM patients. This potentially opens a new dimension for the use of MRD in MM, but this role still remains to be confirmed in prospective, randomized clinical trials.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingDisease ManagementFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMultiple MyelomaNeoplasm, ResidualPrognosisRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeMeasurable residual diseaseMinimal residual diseaseMultiple myeloma

Identifiers

PMID34404440
PMCPMC8369640
OpenAlexW3196046243

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.