European Myeloma Network Group Consensus Statement on the use of next-generation sequencing for prognostic stratification of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma
Niccolò Bolli, Mattia D'Agostino, Tina Bagratuni, Mario Boccadoro, Michele Cavo, Christoph Driessen, Hermann Einsele, Monika Engelhardt, Francesca Gay, Norma C. Gutiérrez, Roman Hájek, Toril Holien, Cristina João, Martin Kaiser, K. Martin Kortüm, Lisa Leypoldt, Philippe Moreau, Pellegrino Musto, Enrique M. Ocio, Marc S. Raab, Leo Rasche, Fredrik Schjesvold, Tereza Sevcikova, Evangelos Terpos, Cyrille Touzeau, Niels W. C. J. Van de Donk, Mark van Duin, Katja Weisel, Elena Zamagni, Tom Cupedo, Pieter Sonneveld, Carolina Terragna
{"title":"European Myeloma Network Group Consensus Statement on the use of next-generation sequencing for prognostic stratification of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma","authors":"Niccolò Bolli, Mattia D'Agostino, Tina Bagratuni, Mario Boccadoro, Michele Cavo, Christoph Driessen, Hermann Einsele, Monika Engelhardt, Francesca Gay, Norma C. Gutiérrez, Roman Hájek, Toril Holien, Cristina João, Martin Kaiser, K. Martin Kortüm, Lisa Leypoldt, Philippe Moreau, Pellegrino Musto, Enrique M. Ocio, Marc S. Raab, Leo Rasche, Fredrik Schjesvold, Tereza Sevcikova, Evangelos Terpos, Cyrille Touzeau, Niels W. C. J. Van de Donk, Mark van Duin, Katja Weisel, Elena Zamagni, Tom Cupedo, Pieter Sonneveld, Carolina Terragna","doi":"10.1002/hem3.70216","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Given the evolving understanding of genetic risk factors in multiple myeloma (MM), this paper assesses whether next-generation sequencing (NGS) could complement or even replace fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) at diagnosis. A structured consensus process within European Myeloma Network (EMN) clinical and laboratory groups was conducted to establish recommendations on routine clinical deployment of NGS in MM risk assessment. Four key questions were addressed: (1) should NGS be used in addition to, or alternatively to FISH in identifying prognostic genetic markers, (2) which prognostic markers are most relevant for analysis by NGS, (3) which patients should be offered NGS testing, and (4) what is the optimal timing for performing NGS. The panel reviewed current literature, evaluated available NGS technologies, and compared their performance with that of FISH-based methodologies. The paper reviews current standard NGS protocols, quality control measures, and provides practical points for the implementation of an NGS diagnosis in MM. While NGS shows promise in improving risk stratification, challenges such as cost, accessibility, and clinical workflow integration must be addressed. The consensus supports the initial incorporation of NGS as a complementary tool to FISH. Recommendations emphasize that: a broader list of genetic events should be incorporated into such a test than what currently requested by risk scores; the test should be offered at least to the fit patients who could be candidates for modern triplet or quadruplet treatments; the test should be repeated at the time relapse, especially in the future when targeted treatments may mandate the use of predictive markers of response. This consensus provides a foundation for future research and policy development, guiding the adoption of NGS in MM risk assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":12982,"journal":{"name":"HemaSphere","volume":"9 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":14.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12517052/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HemaSphere","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hem3.70216","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Given the evolving understanding of genetic risk factors in multiple myeloma (MM), this paper assesses whether next-generation sequencing (NGS) could complement or even replace fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) at diagnosis. A structured consensus process within European Myeloma Network (EMN) clinical and laboratory groups was conducted to establish recommendations on routine clinical deployment of NGS in MM risk assessment. Four key questions were addressed: (1) should NGS be used in addition to, or alternatively to FISH in identifying prognostic genetic markers, (2) which prognostic markers are most relevant for analysis by NGS, (3) which patients should be offered NGS testing, and (4) what is the optimal timing for performing NGS. The panel reviewed current literature, evaluated available NGS technologies, and compared their performance with that of FISH-based methodologies. The paper reviews current standard NGS protocols, quality control measures, and provides practical points for the implementation of an NGS diagnosis in MM. While NGS shows promise in improving risk stratification, challenges such as cost, accessibility, and clinical workflow integration must be addressed. The consensus supports the initial incorporation of NGS as a complementary tool to FISH. Recommendations emphasize that: a broader list of genetic events should be incorporated into such a test than what currently requested by risk scores; the test should be offered at least to the fit patients who could be candidates for modern triplet or quadruplet treatments; the test should be repeated at the time relapse, especially in the future when targeted treatments may mandate the use of predictive markers of response. This consensus provides a foundation for future research and policy development, guiding the adoption of NGS in MM risk assessment.
期刊介绍:
HemaSphere, as a publication, is dedicated to disseminating the outcomes of profoundly pertinent basic, translational, and clinical research endeavors within the field of hematology. The journal actively seeks robust studies that unveil novel discoveries with significant ramifications for hematology.
In addition to original research, HemaSphere features review articles and guideline articles that furnish lucid synopses and discussions of emerging developments, along with recommendations for patient care.
Positioned as the foremost resource in hematology, HemaSphere augments its offerings with specialized sections like HemaTopics and HemaPolicy. These segments engender insightful dialogues covering a spectrum of hematology-related topics, including digestible summaries of pivotal articles, updates on new therapies, deliberations on European policy matters, and other noteworthy news items within the field. Steering the course of HemaSphere are Editor in Chief Jan Cools and Deputy Editor in Chief Claire Harrison, alongside the guidance of an esteemed Editorial Board comprising international luminaries in both research and clinical realms, each representing diverse areas of hematologic expertise.