FLOW CYTOMETRY IN THE DIAGNOSIS AND MONITORING OF MINIMAL RESIDUAL DISEASE IN MULTIPLE MYELOMA
https://doi.org/10.17650/1818-8346-2017-12-2-80-94
Abstract
Over the past 20 years, approaches to the therapy of multiple myeloma have undergone significant changes, and frequency of achieving remission of the disease increased. The new diagnostic methods allowed evaluating the more deep therapy response and predicting the relapse: allele-specific polymerase chain reaction, next generation sequencing, multicolor flow cytometry may detect a minimal residual disease (MRD) with a sensitivity of 10–5 to 10–6. Evaluation of MRD by flow cytometry is a dynamically developing direction of research. The aim of multicenter investigations using flow cytometry for MRD-searching in multiple myeloma is standardization, increasing the sensitivity and specificity of this method. The article presents data on the methods used in monitoring MRD, as well as advances in flow cytometry.
About the Authors
I. V. Galtseva
Hematological Research Center, Ministry of Health of Russia
Russian Federation
4a Noviy Zykovskiy Proezd, Moscow 125167
Russian Federation
4a Noviy Zykovskiy Proezd, Moscow 125167
Y. O. Davydova
Hematological Research Center, Ministry of Health of Russia
Russian Federation
4a Noviy Zykovskiy Proezd, Moscow 125167
Russian Federation
4a Noviy Zykovskiy Proezd, Moscow 125167
N. M. Kapranov
Hematological Research Center, Ministry of Health of Russia
Russian Federation
4a Noviy Zykovskiy Proezd, Moscow 125167
Russian Federation
4a Noviy Zykovskiy Proezd, Moscow 125167
U. L. Julakyan
Hematological Research Center, Ministry of Health of Russia
Russian Federation
4a Noviy Zykovskiy Proezd, Moscow 125167
Russian Federation
4a Noviy Zykovskiy Proezd, Moscow 125167
L. P. Mendeleeva
Hematological Research Center, Ministry of Health of Russia
Russian Federation
4a Noviy Zykovskiy Proezd, Moscow 125167
Russian Federation
4a Noviy Zykovskiy Proezd, Moscow 125167
References
1. Ferlay J., Soerjomataram I., Dikshit R. et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: Sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 2014,136(5):e359–86. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.29210. PMID: 25220842.
2. Rajkumar S., Kyle R. Multiple myeloma: diagnosis and treatment. Mayo Clin Proc 2005,80(10):1371–82. DOI: 10.4065/80.10.1371. PMID: 16212152.
3. Rajkumar S., Kumar S. Multiple myeloma: diagnosis and treatment. Mayo Clin Proc 2016,91(1):101–19. DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2015.11.007. PMID: 26763514.
4. Rajkumar S., Dimopoulos M., Palumbo A. et al. International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol 2014,15(12):e538–48. DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(14)70442-5. PMID: 25439696.
5. DurieB., Harousseau J., Miguel J. et al.International uniform response criteria for multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2006,20(9):1467–73. DOI: 10.1038/sj.leu.2404284. PMID: 16855634.
6. Kumar S., Rajkumar S., Dispenzieri A. et al. Improved survival in multiple myeloma and the impact of novel therapies. Blood 2008,111(5): 2516–20. DOI: 10.1182/blood-2007-10-116129. PMID: 17975015.
7. Rajkumar S. Myeloma today: Disease definitions and treatment advances. Am J Hematol 2015,91(1):90–100. DOI: 10.1002/ajh.24236. PMID: 26565896.
8. Palumbo A., Cavallo F., Gay F. et al. Autologous transplantation and maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med 2014,371(10):895–905. DOI: 10.1056/nejmoa1402888. PMID: 25184862.
9. Sonneveld P., Goldschmidt H., Rosinol L. et al. Bortezomib-based versus nonbortezomib-based induction treatment before autologous stem-cell transplantation in patients with previously untreated multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis of phase III randomized, controlled trials. J Clin Oncol 2013,31(26):3279–87. DOI: 10.1200/jco.2012.48.4626. PMID: 23897961.
10. Rajkumar S., Harousseau J., Durie B. et al. Consensus recommendations for the uniform reporting of clinical trials: report of the International Myeloma Workshop Consensus Panel 1. Blood 2011,117(18):4691–95. DOI: 10.1182/blood-2010-10-299487. PMID: 21292775.
11. Chee C., Kumar S., Larson D. et al. The importance of bone marrow examination in determining complete response to therapy in patients with multiple myeloma. Blood 2009,114(13):2617–8. DOI: 10.1182/blood-2009-01-198788. PMID: 19641191
12. Kyrtsonis M., Vassilakopoulos T., Kafasi N. et al. Prognostic value of serum free light chain ratio at diagnosis in multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 2007,137(3):240–3. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2141.2007.06561.x. PMID: 17408464.
13. Martínez-López J., Paiva B., Lopez-Anglada L. et al. Critical analysis of the stringent complete response in multiple myeloma: contribution of sFLC and bone marrow clonality. Blood 2015,126(7):858–62. DOI: 10.1182/blood-2015-04-638742. PMID: 26089396.
14. Lopez-Anglada L., Cueto-Felgueroso C., Mateos M.V. et al. Usefulness of SerumFree-Light-Chains-Ratio (SFLCR) and Serum Heavy-Light-Chains-Ratio (SHLCR) in multiple myeloma in the context of three GEM / Pethema clinical trials. Blood 2015, 126(23), 2962. Available at: http://www.bloodjournal.org/ content/126/23/2962
15. Paiva B., Martínez-López J., Vidriales M. et al. Comparison of Immunofixation, Serum Free Light Chain, and Immunophenotyping for Response Evaluation and Prognostication in Multiple Myeloma. J Clin Oncol 2011, 29(12):1627–33. DOI: 10.1200/jco.2010.33.1967. PMID: 21402611.
16. Paiva B., Gutierrez N., Rosinol L. et al. High-risk cytogenetics and persistent minimal residual disease by multiparameter flow cytometry predict unsustained complete response after autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma. Blood 2011,119(3):687–91. DOI: 10.1182/blood-2011-07-370460. PMID: 22128143
17. Kuiper R., van Duin M., van Vliet M. et al. Prediction of high- and low-risk multiple myeloma based on gene expression and the International Staging System. Blood 2015,126(17):1996–2004. DOI: 10.1182/blood-2015-05-644039. PMID: 26330243.
18. Fonseca R., Bergsagel P., Drach J. et al. International Myeloma Working Group molecular classification of multiple myeloma: spotlight review. Leukemia 2009,23(12):2210–21. DOI: 10.1038/leu.2009.174. PMID: 19798094.
19. Puig N., Sarasquete M., Balanzategui A. et al. Critical evaluation of ASO RQ-PCR for minimal residual disease evaluation in multiple myeloma. A comparative analysis with flow cytometry. Leukemia 2013,28(2):391–7. DOI: 10.1038/leu.2013.217. PMID: 23860448.
20. Sarasquete M.E., García-Sanz R., González D. et al. Minimal residual disease monitoring in multiple myeloma: a comparison between allelic-specific oligonucleotide real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction and flow cytometry. Haematologica 2005, 90(10),1365–72. PMID: 16219573.
21. Silvennoinen R., Lundan T., Kairisto V. et al. Comparative analysis of minimal residual disease detection by multiparameter flow cytometry and enhanced ASO RQ-PCR in multiple myeloma. Blood Cancer J 2014,4(10):250. DOI: 10.1038/bcj.2014.69. PMID: 25303369
22. Fulciniti M., Munshi N., Martínez-López J. Deep Response in Multiple Myeloma: A Critical Review. Biomed Res Int 2015,2015:1–7. DOI: 10.1155/2015/832049. PMID: 26783530.
23. Martínez-López J., Lahuerta J., Pepin F. et al. Prognostic value of deep sequencing method for minimal residual disease detection in multiple myeloma. Blood 2014,123(20):3073–9. DOI: 10.1182/blood-2014-01-550020. PMID: 24646471.
24. Faham M., Zheng J., Moorhead M. et al. Deep-sequencing approach for minimal residual disease detection in acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood 2012,120(26):5173–80. DOI: 10.1182/blood-2012-07-444042. PMID: 23074282.
25. Kord N., Mailankody S., Roschewski M. et al. Minimal residual disease (MRD) testing in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients: a prospective head-to-head assessment of cell-based, molecular, and molecular-imaging modalities. Blood 2014, 124(21):2105.
26. Dimopoulos M., Terpos E., Comenzo R.L. et al. 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, 1545–56. DOI: 10.1038/leu.2009.89. PMID: 19421229.
27. Hillengass J., Ayyaz S., Kilk K. et al. Changes in magnetic resonance imaging before and after autologous stem cell transplantation correlate with response and survival in multiple myeloma. Haematologica 2012,97(11):1757–60. DOI: 10.3324/haematol.2012.065359. PMID: 22689673.
28. Usmani S., Mitchell A., Waheed S. et al. Prognostic implications of serial 18-fluoro-deoxyglucose emission tomography in multiple myeloma treated with total therapy 3. Blood 2013,121(10):1819–23. DOI: 10.1182/blood-2012-08-451690. PMID: 22689673.
29. Caers J., Withofs N., Hillengass J. et al. The role of positron emission tomographycomputed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis and follow up of multiple myeloma. Haematologica 2014,99(4):629–37. DOI: 10.3324/haematol.2013.091918. PMID: 24688111.
30. Zamagni E., Patriarca F., Nanni C. et al. Prognostic relevance of 18-F FDG PET/ CT in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated with up-front autologous transplantation. Blood 2011,118(23):5989–95. DOI: 10.1182/blood-2011-06-361386. PMID: 21900189.
31. Bartel T., Haessler J., Brown T. et al. F18- fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the context of other imaging techniques and prognostic factors in multiple myeloma. Blood 2009,114(10):2068–76. DOI: 10.1182/blood-2009-03-213280. PMID: 19443657.
32. Loken M., Chu S., Fritschle W. et al. Normalization of bone marrow aspirates for hemodilution in flow cytometric analyses. Cytometry 2009,76B(1):27–36. DOI: 10.1002/cyto.b.20429. PMID: 18548614.
33. Rawstron A., Orfao A., Beksac M. et al. Report of the European Myeloma Network on multiparametric flow cytometry in multiple myeloma and related disorders. Haematologica 2008,93(3):431–8. DOI: 10.3324/haematol.11080. PMID: 18268286.
34. Hartmann L., Biggerstaff J., Chapman D. et al. Detection of genomic abnormalities in multiple myeloma: the application of FISH analysis in combination with various plasma cell enrichment techniques. Am J Clin Pathol 2011,136(5):712–20. DOI: 10.1309/ajcpf7nflw8uajep. PMID: 22031309.
35. Ely S., Biran N., Chari A. What we mean when we talk about MRD in myeloma. A review of current methods. Part 1 of a two-part series. Curr Hematol Malig Rep 2014,9(4):379-88. DOI: 10.1007/s11899-014-0238-x. PMID: 25277219.
36. Paiva B., Vidriales M., Mateo G. et al. The persistence of immunophenotypically normal residual bone marrow plasma cells at diagnosis identifies a good prognostic subgroup of symptomatic multiple myeloma patients. Blood 2009,114(20):4369–72. DOI: 10.1182/blood-2009-05-221689. PMID: 19755674.
37. Rawstron A.C., Fenton J.A.L., GonzalezD. et al. High-risk MGUS: Identification by immunophenotype, karyotype, and clonal homogeneity. Blood 2003,102(11):36A–7A.
38. Perez-Persona E., Vidriales M., Mateo G. et al. New criteria to identify risk of progression in monoclonal gammopathy of uncertain significance and smoldering multiple myeloma based on multiparameter flow cytometry analysis of bone marrow plasma cells. Blood 2007,110(7):2586–92. DOI: 10.1182/blood-2007-05-088443. PMID: 17576818.
39. Paiva B., Almeida J., Pérez-Andrés M. et al. Utility of flow cytometry immunophenotyping in multiple myeloma and other clonal plasma cell-related disorders. Cytometry 2010: 239–52. DOI: 10.1002/cyto.b.20512. PMID: 20155853.
40. Rihova L., Muthu Raja K., Calheiros Leite L. et al. Immunophenotyping in Multiple Myeloma and Others Monoclonal Gammopathies. In: Multiple Myeloma – A Quick Reflection on the Fast Progress. Ed. R. Hajek. Epub: 2013. DOI: 10.5772/55938.
41. Reid S., Yang S., Brown R. et al. Characterisation and relevance of CD138-negative plasma cells in plasma cell myeloma. Int J Lab Hematol 2010,32(6 Pt 1):e190–6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-553x.2010.01222.x. PMID: 20201998.
42. Bataille R., Jégo G., Robillard N. et al. The phenotype of normal, reactive and malignant plasma cells. Identification of "many and multiple myelomas" and of new targets for myeloma therapy. Haematologica 2006, 91(9), 1234–40. PMID: 16956823.
43. Ise M., Matsubayashi K., Tsujimura H., Kumagai K. Loss of CD38 Expression in Relapsed Refractory Multiple Myeloma. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 2016, 16(5): 59–64. DOI: 10.1016/j.clml.2016.02.037. PMID: 26997107.
44. Kawano Y. Hypoxia reduces CD138 expression and induces an immature and stem cell-like transcriptional program in myeloma cells. Int J Oncol 2013, 43(6):1809–16. DOI: 10.3892/ijo.2013.2134. PMID: 24126540.
45. Flores-Montero J., de Tute R., Paiva B. et al. Immunophenotype of normal vs. myeloma plasma cells: Toward antibody panel specifications for MRD detection in multiple myeloma. Cytometry 2015,90(1):61–72. DOI: 10.1002/cyto.b.21265. PMID: 26100534.
46. Stetler-Stevenson M., Davis B., Wood B., Braylan R. 2006 Bethesda International Consensus Conference on Flow Cytometric Immunophenotyping of Hematolymphoid Neoplasia. Cytometry 2007,72B(S1):S3. DOI: 10.1002/cyto.b.20362. PMID: 17803189.
47. Kumar S., Kimlinger T., Morice W. Immunophenotyping in multiple myeloma and related plasma cell disorders. Best Pract Res Clin Haematol 2010,23(3):433–51. DOI: 10.1016/j.beha.2010.09.002. PMID: 21112041.
48. Stetler-Stevenson M., Paiva B., Stoolman L. et al. Consensus guidelines for myeloma minimal residual disease sample staining and data acquisition. Cytometry 2015,90(1):26–30. DOI: 10.1002/cyto.b.21249. PMID: 25907102.
49. Peceliunas V., Janiulioniene A., Matuzeviciene R., Griskevicius L. Six color flow cytometry detects plasma cells expressing aberrant immunophenotype in bone marrow of healthy donors. Cytometry 2011,80(5):318–23. DOI: 10.1002/cyto.b.20601. PMID: 21634008.
50. Liu D., Lin P., Hu Y. et al. Immunophenotypic heterogeneity of normal plasma cells: comparison with minimal residual plasma cell myeloma. Am J Clin Pathol 2012,65(9):823–9. DOI: 10.1136/jclinpath-2012-200881. PMID: 22685235.
51. Paiva B., Vidriales M., Cervero J. et al. Multiparameter flow cytometric remission is the most relevant prognostic factor for multiple myeloma patients who undergo autologous stem cell transplantation. Blood 2008,112(10):4017–23. DOI: 10.1182/blood-2008-05-159624. PMID: 18669875.
52. Rawstron A., Child J., de Tute R. et al. 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(20):2540–7. DOI: 10.1200/jco.2012.46.2119. PMID: 23733781.
53. Roussel M., Lauwers-Cances V., Robillard N. et al. Front-Line Transplantation Program With Lenalidomide, Bortezomib, and Dexamethasone Combination As Induction and Consolidation Followed by Lenalidomide Maintenance in Patients With Multiple Myeloma: A Phase II Study by the Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome. J Clin Oncol 2014, 32(25):2712–7. DOI: 10.1200/jco.2013.54.8164. PMID: 25024076.
Review
For citations:
Galtseva I.V., Davydova Y.O., Kapranov N.M., Julakyan U.L., Mendeleeva L.P. FLOW CYTOMETRY IN THE DIAGNOSIS AND MONITORING OF MINIMAL RESIDUAL DISEASE IN MULTIPLE MYELOMA. Oncohematology. 2017;12(2):80-94. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17650/1818-8346-2017-12-2-80-94
Views:
10249
Email this article 