Abstract 825P
Background
MRD assessment in bone marrow (BM-MRD) is a relevant prognostic factor in multiple myeloma (MM). However, MRD is an established test in MM clinical trials but not in routine practice. Less invasive methods to monitor MRD in peripheral blood (PB) could facilitate its implementation.
Methods
This study enrolled 243 patients monitored in PETHEMA/GEM clinical trials. In all, BM-MRD was processed using NGF. In 83 patients, PB-MRD was examined in cell-free DNA (cfDNA) using CloneSight, a highly sensitive (>10-4) NGS method based on patient-specific multiplexed amplicon mini-panels covering somatic mutations identified at diagnosis. PB-MRD was then evaluated by BloodFlow, another high-sensitive method (10-7) that combines immunomagnetic enrichment with NGF.
Results
CloneSight was performed in 83 patients, 9 were excluded due to lack of suitable somatic mutations for PB-MRD tracking. A total of 194 samples were studied, 12 (6%) were PB-MRD positive, from 9 of the 74 (12%) patients. In 166 samples, BM-MRD was simultaneously analyzed using NGF. The concordance between PB-MRD using CloneSight and BM-MRD by NGF was 67% (62% double negative and 5% double positive). The frequency of CloneSight-/NGF+ and CloneSight+/NGF- discordant assessments was 31% and 2% respectively. Of note, only 3 of the 74 (4%) MRD negative patients relapsed thus far. Upon analyzing PB-MRD with both methods described, another 4/74 patients were CloneSight-/BloodFlow+, of whom 1 progressed. Of note, the only case being CloneSight+/BloodFlow- relapsed. The negative predictive value (NPV) of PB-MRD using BloodFlow was about 80%. CloneSight also offered a high PPV of 100%. The landmark median PFS of patients with negative vs positive PB-MRD using CloneSight was NR vs 14 months, respectively (HR:11.7, P<.001).
Conclusions
CloneSight and BloodFlow are empowered to assess PB-MRD with high sensitivity based on the respective detection of cfDNA and circulating tumor cells (CTCs). Presence of mutations and CTCs was associated with a shorter PFS. The high PPV achieved indicates that identification of such events in the group of BM-MRD-positive patients could stratify those at immediate risk of relapse.
Clinical trial identification
Editorial acknowledgement
Legal entity responsible for the study
The authors.
Funding
Has not received any funding.
Disclosure
All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Resources from the same session
212P - BRGSF-HIS mice as a predictive tool for safety assessment of biologics
Presenter: Kader Thiam
Session: Poster session 09
213P - Constructing a high-definition patient-digital twin (PDT) in treatment-naïve women with advanced cancer
Presenter: Leonardo Garma
Session: Poster session 09
215P - Detection of MUTYH for the prognosis and chemotherapy responsiveness of patients with non-small cell lung cancer
Presenter: Chi Wai Wong
Session: Poster session 09
216P - β-catenin is a potential prognostic biomarker in uterine sarcoma
Presenter: Ying Cai
Session: Poster session 09
218P - Exploiting a unique glycosaminoglycan for novel pan-cancer therapies and diagnostics
Presenter: Mette Agerbæk
Session: Poster session 09
219P - The landscape and prognostic impact of germline HLA-A subtypes in patients with advanced solid cancers
Presenter: Kyrillus Shohdy
Session: Poster session 09
220P - The role of fucosyltransferase 1 (FUT1) in CRC as a putative prognostic and predictive biomarker
Presenter: Lorenz Pammer
Session: Poster session 09
221P - ANGPTL4's role in cancer: A meta analysis and bioinformatics exploration
Presenter: Osama Younis
Session: Poster session 09
222P - Artificial intelligence (AI) based prognostication from baseline computed tomography (CT) scans in a phase III advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) trial
Presenter: Omar Khan
Session: Poster session 09