Baseline characteristics, serological and measurable residual disease responses and outcomes in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients not planned for autologous stem cell transplant; Results from a prospective randomised study using MRD guided therapy

A Aabhran Singh (1Seth GS Medical College, Mumbai, India) A Aditya Nair (1Seth GS Medical College, Mumbai, India) D Dhyey Mishra (1Seth GS Medical College, Mumbai, India) B Bhausaheb Bagal (2Tata Memorial Centre, Department of Medical Oncology, Mumbai, India) P Prashant Tembhare (2Tata Memorial Centre, Department of Medical Oncology, Mumbai, India) A Alok Shetty (32Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India) L Lingaraj Nayak (2Tata Memorial Centre, Department of Medical Oncology, Mumbai, India) N Nishant Jindal (2Tata Memorial Centre, Department of Medical Oncology, Mumbai, India) S Sumeet Mirgh (2Tata Memorial Centre, Department of Medical Oncology, Mumbai, India) A Anant Gokarn (2Tata Memorial Centre, Department of Medical Oncology, Mumbai, India) S Sachin Punatar (2Tata Memorial Centre, Department of Medical Oncology, Mumbai, India) S Sweta Rajpal (2Tata Memorial Centre, Department of Medical Oncology, Mumbai, India) N Nikhil Patkar (2Tata Memorial Centre, Department of Medical Oncology, Mumbai, India) G Gaurav Chatterjee (2Tata Memorial Centre, Department of Medical Oncology, Mumbai, India) P PG Subramanian (2Tata Memorial Centre, Department of Medical Oncology, Mumbai, India) D Dhanlaxmi Shetty (2Tata Memorial Centre, Department of Medical Oncology, Mumbai, India) H Hemani Jain (2Tata Memorial Centre, Department of Medical Oncology, Mumbai, India) H Hasmukh Jain (11Hematolymphoid Unit, Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India) M Manju Sengar (32Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India) N Navin Khattry (2Tata Memorial Centre, Department of Medical Oncology, Mumbai, India)

Abstract

Abstract Introduction In recent times, Measurable Residual Disease(MRD) has emerged as a strong prognostic tool for Multiple Myeloma. It has potential to guide treatment which can include intensity, duration, and promote rational use of resources, especially in resource constrained settings. However studies on feasibility and utility remain limited. In this report, we discuss the baseline and serological characteristics associated with MRD results and further outcomes from a prospective study evaluating MRD guided therapy. Methods Patients who were newly diagnosed with Multiple Myeloma, ASCT ineligible and those who were started on VRd underwent a flow-MRD assessment provided that they achieved at least VGPR post 8 cycles of treatment. Patients who were MRD positive were randomized into two groups, one receiving standard maintenance therapy versus another which was planned for MRD guided consolidation with VRd/KPd for a maximum of 12 additional cycles until MRD was negative. Results A total of 279 patients were registered in this clinical trial between July 2022 and June 2024. Out of 279, 127 (45%) MRD evaluation could not be done. The most common reason was failure to achieve at least VGPR which was seen in 50 patients (17%). Other reasons included lack of fitness for the triplet regimen (32, 11%), early mortality (21,7%), presence of primary refractory disease (12, 4.3%), or if the patients were not keen on Bone marrow studies (7, 2.5%). 5 patients were excluded due to lack of feasibility of a BM MRD test. The median age of the remaining 152 patients who underwent MRD assessment was 55 years (range: 32-79), with 109 (72%) being male. At presentation, 86 had anemia (56.6%), 47 had hypercalcemia (30.9%), 142 had lytic bone lesions (93.4%) and renal dysfunction was observed in 24 patients (15.8%). 19 patients had RISS I (52.6%) while 80 (52.6%) and 41 (27%) had RISS II and RISS III respectively. Baseline Cytogenetics included presence of hyperdiploidy in 73 (48%), t(4;14) in 12 (7.9%), t(14;16) in 7 (4.6%), del 17p in 3 (2%), 1q gain/amplification in 44 (29%) and del1p was seen in 3 (2%) patients. In accordance with the IMWG response criteria, at the end of eight cycles, CR was achieved in 96 (64%) while VGPR was seen in 54 (36%). 60 (38.8)% patients reached MRD negativity at threshold of 10-5 while the remaining 92 (60.5% patients remained MRD positive. MRD positivity was significantly higher amongst patients who had VGPR in comparison to CR (52% vs 10%, p<0.001). On analysis of other baseline characteristics including R-ISS staging and presence of high-risk cytogenetics, no significant association was found. The median PFS and OS were not reached after a median follow up of 21.8 months. A total of 22 patients had serological progression of disease out of which 17 (18.5%) were MRD positive and 5 (8.5%) were MRD negative. PFS at 12 months for MRD positive patients was 74.7% and MRD positivity was significantly associated with poor PFS (ꭓ2 =6.111,p<0.013). A total of 6 deaths were observed, all due to disease progression. Four out of the six deaths occurred in the MRD positive cohort while two were seen in those with MRD negative (p value non significant). Conclusion Evaluation of MRD in our setting appears to be feasible and provides prognostically relevant results. MRD negativity was less frequent among patients achieving VGPR. Other baseline characteristics displayed no significant association with MRD status. MRD positivity was linked to poor PFS and data is still immature for OS analysis. A notable number of patients did not undergo MRD assessment after eight cycles primarily due to suboptimal response underscoring the need for more potent first-line regimes.

Article Details

Journal Blood
Volume / Issue Vol. 146, Issue Supplement 1
Published November 03, 2025
Pages 5779-5779
ISSN 0006-4971
Publisher Elsevier BV

Journal Info

Blood

Elsevier BV

ISSN: 0006-4971 Health Sciences

Authors (20)

A

Aabhran Singh

1Seth GS Medical College, Mumbai, India

A

Aditya Nair

1Seth GS Medical College, Mumbai, India

D

Dhyey Mishra

1Seth GS Medical College, Mumbai, India

B

Bhausaheb Bagal

2Tata Memorial Centre, Department of Medical Oncology, Mumbai, India

P

Prashant Tembhare

2Tata Memorial Centre, Department of Medical Oncology, Mumbai, India

A

Alok Shetty

32Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India

L

Lingaraj Nayak

2Tata Memorial Centre, Department of Medical Oncology, Mumbai, India

N

Nishant Jindal

2Tata Memorial Centre, Department of Medical Oncology, Mumbai, India

S

Sumeet Mirgh

2Tata Memorial Centre, Department of Medical Oncology, Mumbai, India

A

Anant Gokarn

2Tata Memorial Centre, Department of Medical Oncology, Mumbai, India

S

Sachin Punatar

2Tata Memorial Centre, Department of Medical Oncology, Mumbai, India

S

Sweta Rajpal

2Tata Memorial Centre, Department of Medical Oncology, Mumbai, India

N

Nikhil Patkar

2Tata Memorial Centre, Department of Medical Oncology, Mumbai, India

G

Gaurav Chatterjee

2Tata Memorial Centre, Department of Medical Oncology, Mumbai, India

P

PG Subramanian

2Tata Memorial Centre, Department of Medical Oncology, Mumbai, India

D

Dhanlaxmi Shetty

2Tata Memorial Centre, Department of Medical Oncology, Mumbai, India

H

Hemani Jain

2Tata Memorial Centre, Department of Medical Oncology, Mumbai, India

H

Hasmukh Jain

11Hematolymphoid Unit, Department of Medical Oncology, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India

M

Manju Sengar

32Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India

N

Navin Khattry

2Tata Memorial Centre, Department of Medical Oncology, Mumbai, India