Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol 2023; 44(05): 515-524
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1768176
Review Article

Voyage of Measurable Residual Disease Assessment in Multiple Myeloma Using Multiparametric Flow Cytometry

Nupur Das
1   Laboratory Oncology Unit, Dr. B.R.A. Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
,
Ritu Gupta 
1   Laboratory Oncology Unit, Dr. B.R.A. Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Measurable residual disease (MRD) in multiple myeloma (MM) has emerged as one of the strongest and independent biomarkers to evaluate therapeutic response for the prediction of long-term treatment outcome. With the incorporation of MRD in response assessment criterion by International Myeloma Working Group, it has become the routine parameter to be assessed at various time points after therapy. Among various techniques to assess MRD, multiparametric flow cytometry (MFC)-based MRD estimation has evolved dramatically over the last two decades achieving sensitivity comparable to molecular methods. Next-generation flow cytometry with the incorporation of innovative tools in MRD detection including consortium-based guidelines for preanalytical and analytical factors led to the overall improvement in MFC-based MRD detection. However, flow cytometry assays suffer from inherent challenges ranging from procedural hemodilution to lack of harmonization and standardization across the centers.

This review article outlines and summarizes the essential laboratory prerequisites for reproducible MRD analysis by flow cytometry. Furthermore, a brief account of the utility of MRD evaluation in clinical practice as predictor of response and long-term treatment outcome has also been discussed. Considering the evolution of MFC-based MRD over two decades from a scientific research tool to a routine clinical diagnostic assay, it needs to be explored further in studying complex phenomenon like clonal evolution, clonal switches, and identification of treatment refractory clones for guiding more effective therapies improving overall survival.

Keywords

multiple myeloma - flow cytometry - next-generation flow - measurable residual disease

Authors' Contributions

R.G. and N.D. conceived the study, wrote the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Article published online:
24 April 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Durie BG, Harousseau JL, Miguel JS. et al. International Myeloma Working Group. International uniform response criteria for multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2007; 21 (05) 1134
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Sidana S, Tandon N, Dispenzieri A. et al. Relapse after complete response in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: implications of duration of response and patterns of relapse. Leukemia 2019; 33 (03) 730-738
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kumar S, Paiva B, Anderson KC. et al. International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol 2016; 17 (08) e328-e346
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Hillengass J, Usmani S, Rajkumar SV. et al. International Myeloma Working Group consensus recommendations on imaging in monoclonal plasma cell disorders. Lancet Oncol 2019; 20 (06) e302-e312
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Pileri S, Poggi S, Baglioni P. et al. Histology and immunohistology of bone marrow biopsy in multiple myeloma. Eur J Haematol Suppl 1989; 51: 52-59
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Corradini P, Voena C, Tarella C. et al. Molecular and clinical remissions in multiple myeloma: role of autologous and allogeneic transplantation of hematopoietic cells. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17 (01) 208-215
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Sarasquete ME, García-Sanz R, González D. et al. Minimal residual disease monitoring in multiple myeloma: a comparison between allelic-specific oligonucleotide real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction and flow cytometry. Haematologica 2005; 90 (10) 1365-1372
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Almeida J, Orfao A, Ocqueteau M. et al. High-sensitive immunophenotyping and DNA ploidy studies for the investigation of minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol 1999; 107 (01) 121-131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Soh KT, Wallace PK. Monitoring of measurable residual disease in multiple myeloma by multiparametric flow cytometry. Curr Protoc Cytom 2019; 90 (01) e63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Paiva B, van Dongen JJ, Orfao A. New criteria for response assessment: role of minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma. Blood 2015; 125 (20) 3059-3068
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Puig N, Sarasquete ME, Balanzategui A. et al. Critical evaluation of ASO RQ-PCR for minimal residual disease evaluation in multiple myeloma. A comparative analysis with flow cytometry. Leukemia 2014; 28 (02) 391-397
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Medina A, Puig N, Flores-Montero J. et al. Comparison of next-generation sequencing (NGS) and next-generation flow (NGF) for minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment in multiple myeloma. Blood Cancer J 2020; 10 (10) 108 . Published 2020 Oct 30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Rawstron AC, de Tute RM, Haughton J, Owen RG. Measuring disease levels in myeloma using flow cytometry in combination with other laboratory techniques: lessons from the past 20 years at the Leeds Haematological Malignancy Diagnostic Service. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 2016; 90 (01) 54-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Paiva B, Cedena MT, Puig N. et al; Grupo Español de Mieloma/Programa para el Estudio de la Terapéutica en Hemopatías Malignas (GEM/PETHEMA) Cooperative Study Groups. Minimal residual disease monitoring and immune profiling in multiple myeloma in elderly patients. Blood 2016; 127 (25) 3165-3174
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Flores-Montero J, Sanoja-Flores L, Paiva B. et al. Next generation flow for highly sensitive and standardized detection of minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2017; 31 (10) 2094-2103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Das N, Dahiya M, Gupta R. et al. Relevance of polyclonal plasma cells and post-therapy immunomodulation in measurable residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 2022; 102 (03) 209-219
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Sato K, Okazuka K, Ishida T. et al. Minimal residual disease detection in multiple myeloma: comparison between BML single-tube 10-color multiparameter flow cytometry and EuroFlow multiparameter flow cytometry. Ann Hematol 2021; 100 (12) 2989-2995
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Das N, Dahiya M, Gupta R. et al. Flow cytometric immunophenotyping of plasma cells across the spectrum of plasma cell proliferative disorders: a fresh insight with pattern-based recognition. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 2022; 102 (04) 292-302
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Mazzotti C, Buisson L, Maheo S. et al. Myeloma MRD by deep sequencing from circulating tumor DNA does not correlate with results obtained in the bone marrow. Blood Adv 2018; 2 (21) 2811-2813
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Thakral D, Das N, Basnal A, Gupta R. Cell-free DNA for genomic profiling and minimal residual disease monitoring in myeloma- are we there yet?. Am J Blood Res 2020; 10 (03) 26-45
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Vij R, Mazumder A, Klinger M. et al. Deep sequencing reveals myeloma cells in peripheral blood in majority of multiple myeloma patients. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 2014; 14 (02) 131-139.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Milani P, Murray DL, Barnidge DR. et al. The utility of MASS-FIX to detect and monitor monoclonal proteins in the clinic. Am J Hematol 2017; 92 (08) 772-779
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Jamet B, Zamagni E, Nanni C. et al. Functional imaging for therapeutic assessment and minimal residual disease detection in multiple myeloma. Int J Mol Sci 2020; 21 (15) 5406
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Jain G, Das N, Gajendra S. et al. Effect of the sequence of pull of bone marrow aspirates on plasma cell quantification in plasma cell proliferative disorders. Int J Lab Hematol 2022; 44 (05) 837-845
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Cogbill CH, Spears MD, Vantuinen P, Harrington AM, Olteanu H, Kroft SH. Morphologic and cytogenetic variables affect the flow cytometric recovery of plasma cell myeloma cells in bone marrow aspirates. Int J Lab Hematol 2015; 37 (06) 797-808
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Tran DN, Smith SA, Brown DA. et al. Polychromatic flow cytometry is more sensitive than microscopy in detecting small monoclonal plasma cell populations. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 2017; 92 (02) 136-144
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Galtseva IV, Davydova YO, Kapranov NM, Julhakyan HL, Mendeleeva LP. Minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma: benefits of flow cytometry. Int J Lab Hematol 2018; 40 (01) 12-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Stetler-Stevenson M, Paiva B, Stoolman L. et al. Consensus guidelines for myeloma minimal residual disease sample staining and data acquisition. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 2016; 90 (01) 26-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Le Roy C, Varin-Blank N, Ajchenbaum-Cymbalista F, Letestu R. Flow cytometry APC-tandem dyes are degraded through a cell-dependent mechanism. Cytometry A 2009; 75 (10) 882-890
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Kalina T, Flores-Montero J, van der Velden VH. et al; EuroFlow Consortium (EU-FP6, LSHB-CT-2006-018708). EuroFlow standardization of flow cytometer instrument settings and immunophenotyping protocols. Leukemia 2012; 26 (09) 1986-2010
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Flanders A, Stetler-Stevenson M, Landgren O. Minimal residual disease testing in multiple myeloma by flow cytometry: major heterogeneity. Blood 2013; 122 (06) 1088-1089
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Rawstron AC, Gregory WM, de Tute RM. et al. Minimal residual disease in myeloma by flow cytometry: independent prediction of survival benefit per log reduction. Blood 2015; 125 (12) 1932-1935
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Arroz M, Came N, Lin P. et al. Consensus guidelines on plasma cell myeloma minimal residual disease analysis and reporting. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 2016; 90 (01) 31-39
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Davis BH, Wood B, Oldaker T, Barnett D. Validation of cell-based fluorescence assays: practice guidelines from the ICSH and ICCS - part I - rationale and aims. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 2013; 84 (05) 282-285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Das N, Dahiya M, Gupta R. et al. Graded depth of response and neoplastic plasma cell index as indicators of survival outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma following autologous stem cell transplant. Am J Clin Pathol 2023; 159 (01) 69-80
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Rawstron AC, Child JA, de Tute RM. et al. Minimal residual disease assessed by multiparameter flow cytometry in multiple myeloma: impact on outcome in the Medical Research Council Myeloma IX Study. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31 (20) 2540-2547
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Flores-Montero J, Sanoja-Flores L, Paiva B. et al. Next generation flow for highly sensitive and standardized detection of minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2017; 31 (10) 2094-2103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Gupta R, Kumar L, Dahiya M. et al. Minimal residual disease evaluation in autologous stem cell transplantation recipients with multiple myeloma. Leuk Lymphoma 2017; 58 (05) 1234-1237
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Jeong TD, Park CJ, Shim H. et al. Simplified flow cytometric immunophenotyping panel for multiple myeloma, CD56/CD19/CD138(CD38)/CD45, to differentiate neoplastic myeloma cells from reactive plasma cells. Korean J Hematol 2012; 47 (04) 260-266
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Pojero F, Flores-Montero J, Sanoja L. et al; EuroFlow group. Utility of CD54, CD229, and CD319 for the identification of plasma cells in patients with clonal plasma cell diseases. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 2016; 90 (01) 91-100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Broijl A, de Jong ACM, van Duin M, Sonneveld P, Kühnau J, van der Velden VHJ. VS38c and CD38-multiepitope antibodies provide highly comparable minimal residual disease data in patients with multiple myeloma. Am J Clin Pathol 2022; 157 (04) 494-497
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Rai S, Das N, Gupta R. et al. Utility of CD229 as novel marker in measurable residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma-an evidence-based approach. Int J Lab Hematol 2023; 45 (02) 179-186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Liu D, Lin P, Hu Y. et al. Immunophenotypic heterogeneity of normal plasma cells: comparison with minimal residual plasma cell myeloma. J Clin Pathol 2012; 65 (09) 823-829
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Peceliunas V, Janiulioniene A, Matuzeviciene R, Griskevicius L. Six color flow cytometry detects plasma cells expressing aberrant immunophenotype in bone marrow of healthy donors. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 2011; 80 (05) 318-323
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Cao W, Goolsby CL, Nelson BP, Singhal S, Mehta J, Peterson LC. Instability of immunophenotype in plasma cell myeloma. Am J Clin Pathol 2008; 129 (06) 926-933
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Toydemir RM, Rets AV, Hussong JW. et al. Immunophenotypic and cytogenetic evolution patterns of the neoplastic plasma cells in multiple myeloma relapsed after stem cell transplant. J Hematop 2018; 11: 75-80
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Gupta R, Bhaskar A, Kumar L, Sharma A, Jain P. Flow cytometric immunophenotyping and minimal residual disease analysis in multiple myeloma. Am J Clin Pathol 2009; 132 (05) 728-732
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Paiva B, Chandia M, Puig N. et al. The prognostic value of multiparameter flow cytometry minimal residual disease assessment in relapsed multiple myeloma. Haematologica 2015; 100 (02) e53-e55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Keeney M, Halley JG, Rhoads DD. et al. Marked variability in reported minimal residual disease lower level of detection of 4 hematolymphoid neoplasms: a survey of participants in the college of American Pathologists Flow Cytometry Proficiency Testing Program. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2015; 139 (10) 1276-1280
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Scott SD, Fletcher M, Whitehouse H. et al. Assessment of plasma cell myeloma minimal residual disease testing by flow cytometry in an international inter-laboratory study: is it ready for primetime use?. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 2019; 96 (03) 201-208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Soh KT, Came N, Otteson GE. et al. Evaluation of multiple myeloma measurable residual disease by high sensitivity flow cytometry: an international harmonized approach for data analysis. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 2022; 102 (02) 88-106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Sharma P, Singh Sachdeva MU, Varma N, Bose P, Aggarwal R, Malhotra P. Utility and feasibility of a six-color multiparametric flow cytometry for measurable residual disease analysis in plasma cell myeloma in resource-limited settings with 5-year survival data. J Cancer Res Ther 2021; 17 (06) 1515-1520
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 San-Miguel J, Avet-Loiseau H, Paiva B. et al. Sustained minimal residual disease negativity in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma and the impact of daratumumab in MAIA and ALCYONE. Blood 2022; 139 (04) 492-501
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Rawstron AC, Child JA, de Tute RM. et al. Minimal residual disease assessed by multiparameter flow cytometry in multiple myeloma: impact on outcome in the Medical Research Council Myeloma IX Study. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31 (20) 2540-2547
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Rossi G, Falcone AP, Minervini MM. et al. Minimal residual disease and log-reduction of plasma cells are associated with superior response after double autologous stem cell transplant in younger patients with multiple myeloma. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 2019; 96 (03) 195-200
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Munshi NC, Avet-Loiseau H, Anderson KC. et al. A large meta-analysis establishes the role of MRD negativity in long-term survival outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma. Blood Adv 2020; 4 (23) 5988-5999
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Goicoechea I, Puig N, Cedena MT. et al. Deep MRD profiling defines outcome and unveils different modes of treatment resistance in standard- and high-risk myeloma. Blood 2021; 137 (01) 49-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Paíno T, Paiva B, Sayagués JM. et al. Phenotypic identification of subclones in multiple myeloma with different chemoresistant, cytogenetic and clonogenic potential. Leukemia 2015; 29 (05) 1186-1194
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Vrabel D, Sedlarikova L, Besse L. et al. Dynamics of tumor-specific cfDNA in response to therapy in multiple myeloma patients. Eur J Haematol 2020; 104 (03) 190-197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar