Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10261/226467
Share/Export:
logo share SHARE logo core CORE BASE
Visualizar otros formatos: MARC | Dublin Core | RDF | ORE | MODS | METS | DIDL | DATACITE
Title

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

AuthorsMedina, Alejandro; Puig, Noemi; Flores-Montero, Juan; Jiménez, Cristina CSIC; 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
KeywordsMyeloma
Risk factors
Issue Date2020
PublisherSpringer Nature
CitationBlood Cancer Journal 10: 108 (2020)
AbstractDetecting 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.
Description© The Author(s) 2020.
Publisher version (URL)http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41408-020-00377-0
URIhttp://hdl.handle.net/10261/226467
DOI10.1038/s41408-020-00377-0
E-ISSN2044-5385
Appears in Collections:(IBMCC) Artículos

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat
Comparison_Medina_Art2020.pdf890,68 kBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open
Show full item record
Review this work

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

11
checked on Dec 2, 2021

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric

Dimensions


WARNING: Items in Digital.CSIC are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.