Bruno Paiva, Qian Shi, Noemi Puig, Maria-Teresa Cedena, Alberto Orfao, Brian G. M. Durie, Nikhil C. Munshi, Jesús San-Miguel
{"title":"Opportunities and challenges for MRD assessment in the clinical management of multiple myeloma","authors":"Bruno Paiva, Qian Shi, Noemi Puig, Maria-Teresa Cedena, Alberto Orfao, Brian G. M. Durie, Nikhil C. Munshi, Jesús San-Miguel","doi":"10.1038/s41571-025-01017-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Measurable residual disease (MRD) assessment is, from the methodological point of view, ready for prime time in multiple myeloma (MM). Abundant evidence underscores the value of MRD status determined using highly sensitive next-generation flow cytometry and next-generation sequencing tests in evaluating response to treatment and, therefore, prognosis in patients with this disease. MRD response assessment and monitoring might present a range of opportunities for individualized patient management. Moreover, the considerable amounts of high-quality and standardized MRD data generated in clinical trials have led to the acceptance of MRD negativity as an early end point for accelerated regulatory approval of treatments for MM. The data leave no doubt that the efficacy of new regimens in inducing deeper and durable MRD-negative responses is connected with prolonged survival. Yet, several evidential, technical and practical challenges continue to limit the implementation of MRD-guided treatment strategies in routine practice, and the use of MRD as a surrogate end point remains controversial to some. In this Review, we draw on past and present research to propose opportunities for overcoming some of these challenges, and to accelerate the use of MRD assessment for improved clinical management of patients with MM.</p>","PeriodicalId":19079,"journal":{"name":"Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology","volume":"73 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":81.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41571-025-01017-x","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Measurable residual disease (MRD) assessment is, from the methodological point of view, ready for prime time in multiple myeloma (MM). Abundant evidence underscores the value of MRD status determined using highly sensitive next-generation flow cytometry and next-generation sequencing tests in evaluating response to treatment and, therefore, prognosis in patients with this disease. MRD response assessment and monitoring might present a range of opportunities for individualized patient management. Moreover, the considerable amounts of high-quality and standardized MRD data generated in clinical trials have led to the acceptance of MRD negativity as an early end point for accelerated regulatory approval of treatments for MM. The data leave no doubt that the efficacy of new regimens in inducing deeper and durable MRD-negative responses is connected with prolonged survival. Yet, several evidential, technical and practical challenges continue to limit the implementation of MRD-guided treatment strategies in routine practice, and the use of MRD as a surrogate end point remains controversial to some. In this Review, we draw on past and present research to propose opportunities for overcoming some of these challenges, and to accelerate the use of MRD assessment for improved clinical management of patients with MM.
期刊介绍:
Nature Reviews publishes clinical content authored by internationally renowned clinical academics and researchers, catering to readers in the medical sciences at postgraduate levels and beyond. Although targeted at practicing doctors, researchers, and academics within specific specialties, the aim is to ensure accessibility for readers across various medical disciplines. The journal features in-depth Reviews offering authoritative and current information, contextualizing topics within the history and development of a field. Perspectives, News & Views articles, and the Research Highlights section provide topical discussions, opinions, and filtered primary research from diverse medical journals.