Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar a este item: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/226467
COMPARTIR / EXPORTAR:
logo share SHARE logo core CORE BASE
Visualizar otros formatos: MARC | Dublin Core | RDF | ORE | MODS | METS | DIDL | DATACITE

Invitar a revisión por pares abierta
Título

Comparison of next-generation sequencing (NGS) and next-generation flow (NGF) for minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment in multiple myeloma

AutorMedina, Alejandro; Puig, Noemi; Flores-Montero, Juan; Jiménez, Cristina; Sarasquete, María Eugenia; García-Alvarez, María; Prieto-Conde, Isabel; Chillón, M. del Carmen; Alcoceba, Miguel; Gutiérrez, Norma Carmen; Oriol, Albert; Rosiñol, Laura; Bladé, Joan; Gironella, Mercedes; Hernandez, Miguel T.; González-Calle, Verónica; Cedena, Maria-Teresa; Paiva, Bruno; San-Miguel, Jesús; Lahuerta, Juan José; Mateos, Maria Victoria; Martínez-López, Joaquín; Orfao, Alberto CSIC ORCID ; González, Marcos CSIC ORCID ; García-Sanz, Ramón
Palabras claveMyeloma
Risk factors
Fecha de publicación2020
EditorSpringer Nature
CitaciónBlood Cancer Journal 10: 108 (2020)
ResumenDetecting persistent minimal residual disease (MRD) allows the identification of patients with an increased risk of relapse and death. In this study, we have evaluated MRD 3 months after transplantation in 106 myeloma patients using a commercial next-generation sequencing (NGS) strategy (LymphoTrack®), and compared the results with nextgeneration flow (NGF, EuroFlow). The use of different marrow pulls and the need of concentrating samples for NGS biased the applicability for MRD evaluation and favored NGF. Despite that, correlation between NGS and NGF was high (R2 = 0.905). The 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates by NGS and NGF were longer for undetectable vs. positive patients (NGS: 88.7% vs. 56.6%; NGF: 91.4% vs. 50%; p < 0.001 for both comparisons), which resulted in a 3-year overall survival (OS) advantage (NGS: 96.2% vs. 77.3%; NGF: 96.6% vs. 74.9%, p < 0.01 for both comparisons). In the Cox regression model, NGS and NGF negativity had similar results but favoring the latter in PFS (HR: 0.20, 95% CI: 0.09–0.45, p < 0.001) and OS (HR: 0.21, 95% CI: 0.06–0.75, p = 0.02). All these results reinforce the role of MRD detection by different strategies in patient prognosis and highlight the use of MRD as an endpoint for multiple myeloma treatment.
Descripción© The Author(s) 2020.
Versión del editorhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41408-020-00377-0
URIhttp://hdl.handle.net/10261/226467
DOI10.1038/s41408-020-00377-0
E-ISSN2044-5385
Aparece en las colecciones: (IBMCC) Artículos




Ficheros en este ítem:
Fichero Descripción Tamaño Formato
Comparison_Medina_Art2020.pdf890,68 kBAdobe PDFVista previa
Visualizar/Abrir
Mostrar el registro completo

CORE Recommender

PubMed Central
Citations

33
checked on 05-abr-2024

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

64
checked on 11-abr-2024

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

55
checked on 25-feb-2024

Page view(s)

162
checked on 18-abr-2024

Download(s)

150
checked on 18-abr-2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric

Altmetric


Artículos relacionados:


Este item está licenciado bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Creative Commons