Cargando…
Comparison of next-generation sequencing (NGS) and next-generation flow (NGF) for minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment in multiple myeloma
Detecting persistent minimal residual disease (MRD) allows the identification of patients with an increased risk of relapse and death. In this study, we have evaluated MRD 3 months after transplantation in 106 myeloma patients using a commercial next-generation sequencing (NGS) strategy (LymphoTrack...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7603393/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33127891 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41408-020-00377-0 |
_version_ | 1783603910711181312 |
---|---|
author | Medina, Alejandro Puig, Noemi Flores-Montero, Juan Jimenez, Cristina Sarasquete, M.-Eugenia Garcia-Alvarez, María Prieto-Conde, Isabel Chillon, Carmen Alcoceba, Miguel Gutierrez, Norma C. Oriol, Albert Rosinol, Laura Bladè, Joan Gironella, Mercedes Hernandez, Miguel T. Gonzalez-Calle, Veronica Cedena, Maria-Teresa Paiva, Bruno San-Miguel, Jesus F. Lahuerta, Juan-Jose Mateos, Maria-Victoria Martinez-Lopez, Joaquin Orfao, Alberto Gonzalez, Marcos Garcia-Sanz, Ramon |
author_facet | Medina, Alejandro Puig, Noemi Flores-Montero, Juan Jimenez, Cristina Sarasquete, M.-Eugenia Garcia-Alvarez, María Prieto-Conde, Isabel Chillon, Carmen Alcoceba, Miguel Gutierrez, Norma C. Oriol, Albert Rosinol, Laura Bladè, Joan Gironella, Mercedes Hernandez, Miguel T. Gonzalez-Calle, Veronica Cedena, Maria-Teresa Paiva, Bruno San-Miguel, Jesus F. Lahuerta, Juan-Jose Mateos, Maria-Victoria Martinez-Lopez, Joaquin Orfao, Alberto Gonzalez, Marcos Garcia-Sanz, Ramon |
author_sort | Medina, Alejandro |
collection | PubMed |
description | Detecting persistent minimal residual disease (MRD) allows the identification of patients with an increased risk of relapse and death. In this study, we have evaluated MRD 3 months after transplantation in 106 myeloma patients using a commercial next-generation sequencing (NGS) strategy (LymphoTrack®), and compared the results with next-generation flow (NGF, EuroFlow). The use of different marrow pulls and the need of concentrating samples for NGS biased the applicability for MRD evaluation and favored NGF. Despite that, correlation between NGS and NGF was high (R(2) = 0.905). The 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates by NGS and NGF were longer for undetectable vs. positive patients (NGS: 88.7% vs. 56.6%; NGF: 91.4% vs. 50%; p < 0.001 for both comparisons), which resulted in a 3-year overall survival (OS) advantage (NGS: 96.2% vs. 77.3%; NGF: 96.6% vs. 74.9%, p < 0.01 for both comparisons). In the Cox regression model, NGS and NGF negativity had similar results but favoring the latter in PFS (HR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.09–0.45, p < 0.001) and OS (HR: 0.21, 95% CI: 0.06–0.75, p = 0.02). All these results reinforce the role of MRD detection by different strategies in patient prognosis and highlight the use of MRD as an endpoint for multiple myeloma treatment. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7603393 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-76033932020-11-02 Comparison of next-generation sequencing (NGS) and next-generation flow (NGF) for minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment in multiple myeloma Medina, Alejandro Puig, Noemi Flores-Montero, Juan Jimenez, Cristina Sarasquete, M.-Eugenia Garcia-Alvarez, María Prieto-Conde, Isabel Chillon, Carmen Alcoceba, Miguel Gutierrez, Norma C. Oriol, Albert Rosinol, Laura Bladè, Joan Gironella, Mercedes Hernandez, Miguel T. Gonzalez-Calle, Veronica Cedena, Maria-Teresa Paiva, Bruno San-Miguel, Jesus F. Lahuerta, Juan-Jose Mateos, Maria-Victoria Martinez-Lopez, Joaquin Orfao, Alberto Gonzalez, Marcos Garcia-Sanz, Ramon Blood Cancer J Article Detecting persistent minimal residual disease (MRD) allows the identification of patients with an increased risk of relapse and death. In this study, we have evaluated MRD 3 months after transplantation in 106 myeloma patients using a commercial next-generation sequencing (NGS) strategy (LymphoTrack®), and compared the results with next-generation flow (NGF, EuroFlow). The use of different marrow pulls and the need of concentrating samples for NGS biased the applicability for MRD evaluation and favored NGF. Despite that, correlation between NGS and NGF was high (R(2) = 0.905). The 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates by NGS and NGF were longer for undetectable vs. positive patients (NGS: 88.7% vs. 56.6%; NGF: 91.4% vs. 50%; p < 0.001 for both comparisons), which resulted in a 3-year overall survival (OS) advantage (NGS: 96.2% vs. 77.3%; NGF: 96.6% vs. 74.9%, p < 0.01 for both comparisons). In the Cox regression model, NGS and NGF negativity had similar results but favoring the latter in PFS (HR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.09–0.45, p < 0.001) and OS (HR: 0.21, 95% CI: 0.06–0.75, p = 0.02). All these results reinforce the role of MRD detection by different strategies in patient prognosis and highlight the use of MRD as an endpoint for multiple myeloma treatment. Nature Publishing Group UK 2020-10-30 /pmc/articles/PMC7603393/ /pubmed/33127891 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41408-020-00377-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Article Medina, Alejandro Puig, Noemi Flores-Montero, Juan Jimenez, Cristina Sarasquete, M.-Eugenia Garcia-Alvarez, María Prieto-Conde, Isabel Chillon, Carmen Alcoceba, Miguel Gutierrez, Norma C. Oriol, Albert Rosinol, Laura Bladè, Joan Gironella, Mercedes Hernandez, Miguel T. Gonzalez-Calle, Veronica Cedena, Maria-Teresa Paiva, Bruno San-Miguel, Jesus F. Lahuerta, Juan-Jose Mateos, Maria-Victoria Martinez-Lopez, Joaquin Orfao, Alberto Gonzalez, Marcos Garcia-Sanz, Ramon Comparison of next-generation sequencing (NGS) and next-generation flow (NGF) for minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment in multiple myeloma |
title | Comparison of next-generation sequencing (NGS) and next-generation flow (NGF) for minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment in multiple myeloma |
title_full | Comparison of next-generation sequencing (NGS) and next-generation flow (NGF) for minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment in multiple myeloma |
title_fullStr | Comparison of next-generation sequencing (NGS) and next-generation flow (NGF) for minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment in multiple myeloma |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of next-generation sequencing (NGS) and next-generation flow (NGF) for minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment in multiple myeloma |
title_short | Comparison of next-generation sequencing (NGS) and next-generation flow (NGF) for minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment in multiple myeloma |
title_sort | comparison of next-generation sequencing (ngs) and next-generation flow (ngf) for minimal residual disease (mrd) assessment in multiple myeloma |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7603393/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33127891 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41408-020-00377-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT medinaalejandro comparisonofnextgenerationsequencingngsandnextgenerationflowngfforminimalresidualdiseasemrdassessmentinmultiplemyeloma AT puignoemi comparisonofnextgenerationsequencingngsandnextgenerationflowngfforminimalresidualdiseasemrdassessmentinmultiplemyeloma AT floresmonterojuan comparisonofnextgenerationsequencingngsandnextgenerationflowngfforminimalresidualdiseasemrdassessmentinmultiplemyeloma AT jimenezcristina comparisonofnextgenerationsequencingngsandnextgenerationflowngfforminimalresidualdiseasemrdassessmentinmultiplemyeloma AT sarasquetemeugenia comparisonofnextgenerationsequencingngsandnextgenerationflowngfforminimalresidualdiseasemrdassessmentinmultiplemyeloma AT garciaalvarezmaria comparisonofnextgenerationsequencingngsandnextgenerationflowngfforminimalresidualdiseasemrdassessmentinmultiplemyeloma AT prietocondeisabel comparisonofnextgenerationsequencingngsandnextgenerationflowngfforminimalresidualdiseasemrdassessmentinmultiplemyeloma AT chilloncarmen comparisonofnextgenerationsequencingngsandnextgenerationflowngfforminimalresidualdiseasemrdassessmentinmultiplemyeloma AT alcocebamiguel comparisonofnextgenerationsequencingngsandnextgenerationflowngfforminimalresidualdiseasemrdassessmentinmultiplemyeloma AT gutierreznormac comparisonofnextgenerationsequencingngsandnextgenerationflowngfforminimalresidualdiseasemrdassessmentinmultiplemyeloma AT oriolalbert comparisonofnextgenerationsequencingngsandnextgenerationflowngfforminimalresidualdiseasemrdassessmentinmultiplemyeloma AT rosinollaura comparisonofnextgenerationsequencingngsandnextgenerationflowngfforminimalresidualdiseasemrdassessmentinmultiplemyeloma AT bladejoan comparisonofnextgenerationsequencingngsandnextgenerationflowngfforminimalresidualdiseasemrdassessmentinmultiplemyeloma AT gironellamercedes comparisonofnextgenerationsequencingngsandnextgenerationflowngfforminimalresidualdiseasemrdassessmentinmultiplemyeloma AT hernandezmiguelt comparisonofnextgenerationsequencingngsandnextgenerationflowngfforminimalresidualdiseasemrdassessmentinmultiplemyeloma AT gonzalezcalleveronica comparisonofnextgenerationsequencingngsandnextgenerationflowngfforminimalresidualdiseasemrdassessmentinmultiplemyeloma AT cedenamariateresa comparisonofnextgenerationsequencingngsandnextgenerationflowngfforminimalresidualdiseasemrdassessmentinmultiplemyeloma AT paivabruno comparisonofnextgenerationsequencingngsandnextgenerationflowngfforminimalresidualdiseasemrdassessmentinmultiplemyeloma AT sanmigueljesusf comparisonofnextgenerationsequencingngsandnextgenerationflowngfforminimalresidualdiseasemrdassessmentinmultiplemyeloma AT lahuertajuanjose comparisonofnextgenerationsequencingngsandnextgenerationflowngfforminimalresidualdiseasemrdassessmentinmultiplemyeloma AT mateosmariavictoria comparisonofnextgenerationsequencingngsandnextgenerationflowngfforminimalresidualdiseasemrdassessmentinmultiplemyeloma AT martinezlopezjoaquin comparisonofnextgenerationsequencingngsandnextgenerationflowngfforminimalresidualdiseasemrdassessmentinmultiplemyeloma AT orfaoalberto comparisonofnextgenerationsequencingngsandnextgenerationflowngfforminimalresidualdiseasemrdassessmentinmultiplemyeloma AT gonzalezmarcos comparisonofnextgenerationsequencingngsandnextgenerationflowngfforminimalresidualdiseasemrdassessmentinmultiplemyeloma AT garciasanzramon comparisonofnextgenerationsequencingngsandnextgenerationflowngfforminimalresidualdiseasemrdassessmentinmultiplemyeloma |