Measurable Residual Disease–Guided Therapy in Newly Diagnosed Myeloma

Author(s): Aurore Perrot, M.D.1; Jérôme Lambert, Ph.D.2; Cyrille Hulin, M.D.3; Andrea Pieragostini, M.D.4; Lionel Karlin, M.D.5; Bertrand Arnulf, M.D.6; Philippe Rey, M.D.7; Laurent Garderet, M.D.8; Margaret Macro, M.D.9; Martine Escoffre-Barbe, M.D.10; Julie Gay, M.D.11; Thomas Chalopin, M.D.12; Romain Gounot, M.D.13; Jean-Marc Schiano, M.D.14; Mohamad Mohty, M.D.15; Xavier Leleu, M.D.16; Salomon Manier, M.D.17; Clara Mariette, M.D.18; Carine Chaleteix, M.D.19; Thorsten Braun, M.D.20; Bernard De Prijck, M.D.21; Hervé Avet-Loiseau, M.D.22; Jean-Yves Mary, Ph.D.2; Jill Corre, Pharm.D.22; Philippe Moreau, M.D.23; Cyrille Touzeau, M.D.23
Source: N Engl J Med 2025;393:425-437

Dr. Anjan Patel's Thoughts

Quadruplet induction with isatuximab, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (Isa‑KRd) has reset expectations for transplant‑eligible NDMM and enables measurable residual disease (MRD)‑adapted strategies; MRD‑negativity at 10^-5 is strongly prognostic, and the necessity of autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT)—particularly tandem ASCT—amid deep responses is being re‑examined. Practically, MRD‑adapted consolidation after Isa‑KRd suggests no added depth from ASCT in MRD patients and no advantage for tandem ASCT over single ASCT + Isa‑KRd in MRD+ patients. So in day‑to‑day practice, this looks like a chance to de‑escalate transplant intensity while awaiting mature progression-free survival (PFS)/overall survival (OS) data.

BACKGROUND

Measurable residual disease (MRD) is a major prognostic factor in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. An assessment of an MRD-guided consolidation strategy in patients who are eligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) may be useful.

METHODS

In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned transplantation-eligible patients with newly diagnosed myeloma who had completed induction therapy with isatuximab, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (Isa-KRd) to receive consolidation therapy according to their MRD status. Patients who were MRD-negative at 10−5 sensitivity (i.e., <1 cancer cell per 100,000 normal cells, as assessed by next-generation sequencing) were assigned to undergo ASCT and receive Isa-KRd for two cycles (ASCT group) or to receive Isa-KRd for six cycles (Isa-KRd group). Patients who were MRD-positive at 10−5 sensitivity were assigned to undergo tandem ASCT (two ASCTs within a short period; tandem ASCT group) or to undergo ASCT and receive Isa-KRd for two cycles (single ASCT group). The primary end point was an MRD-negative status at 10−6 sensitivity before maintenance therapy. Research Summary Measurable Residual Disease–Guided Therapy in Newly Diagnosed Myeloma

RESULTS

Among 485 patients who were MRD-negative at 10−5 sensitivity after induction, a premaintenance MRD-negative status at 10−6 sensitivity occurred in 86% in the ASCT group and in 84% in the Isa-KRd group (adjusted relative risk, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 1.10; P=0.64). Among 233 patients who were MRD-positive at 10−5 sensitivity after induction, a premaintenance MRD-negative status at 10−6 sensitivity occurred in 32% in the tandem ASCT group and in 40% in the single ASCT group (adjusted relative risk, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.15; P=0.31); 15% of the patients in the tandem ASCT group did not undergo a second ASCT. During consolidation, disease progression occurred in 5 patients and death unrelated to disease progression occurred in 2 patients — all were in the Isa-KRd or tandem ASCT groups. No new safety signals were observed. The median follow-up was 16.8 months in the ASCT and Isa-KRd groups and 16.3 months in the tandem ASCT and single ASCT groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients who were MRD-negative at 10−5 sensitivity after induction, the percentage with a premaintenance MRD-negative status at 10−6 sensitivity was not significantly higher with ASCT than with Isa-KRd. Among patients who were MRD-positive status at 10−5 sensitivity after induction, the percentage with a premaintenance MRD-negative status at 10−6 sensitivity was not significantly higher with tandem ASCT than with single ASCT. (Funded by Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome and others; MIDAS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04934475.)

Author Affiliations

1Service Hématologie, Hôpital Universitaire de Toulouse Oncopole, Université de Toulouse, Toulouse, France; 2Biostatistics and Medical Information Department, Hôpital St. Louis, Paris; 3Service d’Hématologie, Hôpital Haut Lévêque, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) de Bordeaux, Pessac, France; 4Service Hématologie, Hôpital Universitaire de Dijon, Dijon, France; 5Service Hématologie, Hôpital Universitaire Lyon Sud, Pierre-Bénite, France; 6Hôpital Universitaire St. Louis, Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), Paris; 7Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France; 8Service Hématologie, Hôpital Universitaire Pitié-Salpêtrière, AP-HP, Paris; 9Service Hématologie, Institut Hématologie de Basse Normandie, Hôpital Universitaire de Caen, Caen, France; 10Service Hématologie, Hôpital Universitaire de Rennes, Rennes, France; 11Hôpital de Bayonne, Bayonne, France; 12Service Hématologie, Hôpital Universitaire de Tours, Tours, France; 13Service Hématologie, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France; 14Service Hématologie, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France; 15Service Hématologie, Hôpital Universitaire St. Antoine, AP-HP, Université Sorbonne, Paris; 16Service Hématologie, Hôpital Universitaire de Poitiers, Poitiers, France; 17Service Hématologie, Hôpital Universitaire de Lille, Lille, France; 18Service Hématologie, Hôpital CHU de Grenoble, Grenoble, France; 19Service Hématologie, Hôpital Universitaire de Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France; 20Service Hématologie, Hôpital Avicenne, AP-HP, Paris; 21Service Hématologie, Hôpital Universitaire de Liège, Liège, Belgium; 22Unité Génomique du Myélome, Hôpital Universitaire de Toulouse Oncopole, Université de Toulouse, Toulouse, France; 23Service Hématologie, Hôpital Universitaire de Nantes, Université de Nantes, Nantes, France

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Articles

Prognostic value of minimal residual disease negativity in myeloma: combined analysis of POLLUX, CASTOR, ALCYONE, and MAIA

MRD status in MM has unquestionable prognostic informational value, however many questions remain as how to address positive / negative MRD results. Should we de-escalate or stop Rx? When? Can we escalate Rx if + MRD? Which regimen, how long? It will be another few years till objective data are available. I do see value in at least having identification of clonality established upfront for tracking.

Read More »