4.7 Review

International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma

期刊

LANCET ONCOLOGY
卷 17, 期 8, 页码 E328-E346

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30206-6

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Skyline Diagnostics
  2. Noxxon Pharma
  3. Kessios Pharma
  4. Celgene
  5. Millennium
  6. Gilead
  7. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  8. Takeda Sanofi
  9. EngMab
  10. Takeda
  11. Janssen
  12. Novartis
  13. Amgen
  14. Onyx
  15. Spectrum Pharma
  16. Chugai
  17. Karyopharm
  18. Pharmamar
  19. Oncopeptide
  20. Binding Site
  21. BMS
  22. Boehringer Ingelheim
  23. Genmab A/S
  24. Merck
  25. Sanofi
  26. Janssen-Cilag

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Treatment of multiple myeloma has substantially changed over the past decade with the introduction of several classes of new effective drugs that have greatly improved the rates and depth of response. Response criteria in multiple myeloma were developed to use serum and urine assessment of monoclonal proteins and bone marrow assessment (which is relatively insensitive). Given the high rates of complete response seen in patients with multiple myeloma with new treatment approaches, new response categories need to be defined that can identify responses that are deeper than those conventionally defined as complete response. Recent attempts have focused on the identification of residual tumour cells in the bone marrow using flow cytometry or gene sequencing. Furthermore, sensitive imaging techniques can be used to detect the presence of residual disease outside of the bone marrow. Combining these new methods, the International Myeloma Working Group has defined new response categories of minimal residual disease negativity, with or without imaging-based absence of extramedullary disease, to allow uniform reporting within and outside clinical trials. In this Review, we clarify several aspects of disease response assessment, along with endpoints for clinical trials, and highlight future directions for disease response assessments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据