Everyone agrees that minimal residual disease (MRD) is the best prognostic tool for multiple myeloma, but there is disagreement on how to use the MRD results, said Ajay Nooka, MD, MPH, FACP, associate professor, Winship Cancer Institute.
Everyone agrees that minimal residual disease (MRD) is the best prognostic tool for multiple myeloma, but there is disagreement on how to use the MRD results, said Ajay Nooka, MD, MPH, FACP, associate professor, Winship Cancer Institute.
Transcript
A recent study found minimal residual disease (MRD) testing has rapidly gained acceptance. What has been the experience at Emory?
This is a good question. You asked 5 different people, you get 5 different answers. The study that you're referring to was published in Blood Advances. This study was seeking the myeloma experts opinions of how would they use MRD. The approval for MRD testing in myeloma was not for any specific indication—it got an approval. It is left up to the investigator or the clinician to figure out how to use this test, which is becoming the biggest challenge, and which led us to a lot of heterogeneous opinions on how to use the test.
The one thing that I will clearly, confidently say, which most of my colleagues agree, would be: it is the best prognostic test that we have at this point of time. We're able to measure those depths of responses. Achieving MRD negativity of 10-6 is an independent prognostic factor for both the progression-free survival as well as overall survival. We can confidently say that. But when you ask opinions about: how do you use this test for the treatment discontinuations or treatment continuations, it becomes a slippery slope there, because it is all left up to the subjectivity and the decision of the individual.
The same study found that depending on the results of MRD testing, clinicians may intensify or decide to de-escalate therapy. Is one more common than the other at Emory?
We typically don't make any changes at this point of time. We want to build upon the data to make it really beneficial for the patient. We don't want to stop a treatment with a short-term end point. I view achieving MRD negativity as extremely dynamic. You see the changes, you achieve that negativity, you lose that negativity, as well. At any certain point of time, making a treatment decision based on MRD negativity at a certain point of time at this point, I believe is very immature, and this is what has been shown in a lot of trials that are ongoing. There is a role for sustained MRD negativity with a period of time in between lasting 6 months or a year, where you're able to show that MRD negativity levels at 2 different time points, with a duration of time in between, and that potentially will have a better utility than using MRD at a single point of time.
CAR T Proves Effective and Safe for Refractory Multiple Myeloma
May 15th 2024Due to increasing reports of multiple myeloma and the emergence of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy as a treatment option, these investigators conducted a comprehensive review of the medical literature on the latest CAR T developments in the MM space.
Read More
Frameworks for Advancing Health Equity: Urban Health Outreach
May 9th 2024In the series debut episode of "Frameworks for Advancing Health Equity," Mary Sligh, CRNP, and Chelsea Chappars, of Allegheny Health Network, explain how the Urban Health Outreach program aims to improve health equity for individuals experiencing homelessness.
Listen
Tackling Health Inequality: The Power of Education and Experience
April 30th 2024To help celebrate and recognize National Minority Health Month, we are bringing you a special month-long podcast series with our Strategic Alliance Partner, UPMC Health Plan. Welcome to our final episode of this limited series and our conversation with Janine Jelks-Seale, MSPPM, director of health equity at UPMC Health Plan.
Listen