4.5 Review

The minimal that kills: Why defining and targeting measurable residual disease is the Sine Qua Non for further progress in management of acute myeloid leukemia

Journal

BLOOD REVIEWS
Volume 43, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.blre.2019.100650

Keywords

Acute myeloid leukemia; MRD; Minimal residual disease; Immune checkpoint; Next generation sequencing

Categories

Funding

  1. NCI's Cancer Clinical Investigator Team Leadership Award (CCITLA)
  2. National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health [P30 CA016359]
  3. State of Connecticut under the Regenerative Medicine Research Fund
  4. NIH/NIDDK [R01DK102792]
  5. Edwards P. Evans Foundation
  6. Frederick A. Deluca Foundation
  7. Leukemia Lymphoma Society
  8. Department of Defense Cancer Research Program
  9. DeLuca Center for Innovation in Hematology Research at Yale Cancer Center

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who achieve morphologic remission in the bone marrow after initial treatment often continue to harbor residual leukemic cells that can give rise to disease relapse. Achievement of a deeper remission has been associated with a reduced risk of relapse and improved event-free and overall survival in several studies. However, standardization of diagnostic techniques, sample acquisition and test timing are needed before minimal, also known as measurable, residual disease (MRD) quantification can be used to guide treatment decision making. Furthermore, clinical trial evidence that preemptive intervention at MRD level can alter the natural history of AML is required. Herein, we outline the current landscape of MRD assessment in AML, summarize the available evidence and challenges, and highlight the potential for MRD status to serve as a surrogate endpoint for hard clinical outcomes and as an approvable endpoint in clinical trials for regulatory purposes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available