Optimal MRD-based end point to support response-adapted treatment cessation in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma

S Smith Giri (1Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, The University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham, AL) B Binod Dhakal (2Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI) N Natalie S. Callander (3Division of Hematology, Medical Oncology and Palliative Care, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI) E Eva Medvedova (Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland) K Kelly Godby (1University of Alabama at Birmingham, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Birmingham, United States) B Bhagirathbhai R. Dholaria (5Division of Hematology Oncology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN) S Susan Bal (University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States) G Gayathri Ravi (1Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, The University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham, AL) S Saurabh Chhabra (6The Mayo Clinic Arizona, Pheonix, United States) R Rebecca W. Silbermann (2Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI) L Luciano Costa (42Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States)

Abstract

Abstract The therapeutic success of first-line quadruplet (QUAD) induction therapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has reinvigorated an interest in fixed-duration therapy, yet optimal short-term efficacy end point for treatment cessation is unknown. Using data from a phase 2 clinical trial and a prospective institutional database, we tested the predictive performance of 5 short-term efficacy end points among 221 patients who received QUAD + ASCT followed by treatment cessation if minimal residual disease (MRD) by next-generation sequencing negative for 2 consecutive time points. Efficacy end points tested were International Myeloma Working Group–defined stringent complete response, MRD <10–5 (single data point), MRD <10–6, sustained MRD (S-MRD; 2 consecutive assessments at least 1 year apart) <10–5, and S-MRD <10–6. We built 5 parallel Cox regression models for each efficacy end point with progression-free survival (PFS) as the outcome. Best fitting models were determined using the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Heagerty and Zheng C-index. The best fitting model (AIC, 417.2; C statistic, 0.757) was based on S-MRD <10–5 (hazard ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.47). Similar results were seen for predicting the risk of progression/MRD resurgence among 121 patients undergoing MRD-guided treatment cessation. S-MRD <10–5 is the best predictor of PFS and yields the best predictive models for the risk of MRD resurgence or progression in the setting of fixed-duration therapy. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03224507.

Article Details

Journal Blood
Volume / Issue Vol. 146, Issue 6
Published August 07, 2025
Pages 707-716
ISSN 0006-4971
Publisher Elsevier BV

Journal Info

Blood

Elsevier BV

ISSN: 0006-4971 Health Sciences

Authors (11)

S

Smith Giri

1Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, The University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham, AL

B

Binod Dhakal

2Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI

N

Natalie S. Callander

3Division of Hematology, Medical Oncology and Palliative Care, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI

E

Eva Medvedova

Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland

K

Kelly Godby

1University of Alabama at Birmingham, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Birmingham, United States

B

Bhagirathbhai R. Dholaria

5Division of Hematology Oncology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN

S

Susan Bal

University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States

G

Gayathri Ravi

1Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, The University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham, AL

S

Saurabh Chhabra

6The Mayo Clinic Arizona, Pheonix, United States

R

Rebecca W. Silbermann

2Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI

L

Luciano Costa

42Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States