Minimal Residual Disease in the Maintenance Setting in Myeloma: Prognostic Significance and Impact of Lenalidomide

Introduction. Minimal residual disease (MRD) is a powerful predictor of outcome in multiple myeloma (MM). A recent meta-analysis has confirmed this and demonstrated a hazard ratio for PFS of 0.41; 95% CI, 0.36-0.48; P < .001 (Munshi et al, JAMA Oncol, Jan 2017). We have previously demonstrated th...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inBlood Vol. 130; no. Suppl_1; p. 904
Main Authors de Tute, Ruth M, Cairns, David, Rawstron, Andy, Pawlyn, Charlotte, Davies, Faith E., Jones, John R, Kaiser, Martin F, Hockaday, Anna, Striha, Alina, Henderson, Rowena, Cook, Gordon, Russell, Nigel H., Drayson, Mark T, Jenner, Matthew W, Gregory, Walter M, Jackson, Graham, Morgan, Gareth J., Owen, Roger G.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Elsevier Inc 08.12.2017
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
Abstract Introduction. Minimal residual disease (MRD) is a powerful predictor of outcome in multiple myeloma (MM). A recent meta-analysis has confirmed this and demonstrated a hazard ratio for PFS of 0.41; 95% CI, 0.36-0.48; P < .001 (Munshi et al, JAMA Oncol, Jan 2017). We have previously demonstrated the prognostic impact of MRD both following ASCT in transplant-eligible (TE) patients and following induction in transplant non-eligible (TNE) patients. There is more limited data on the applicability and significance of MRD assessment in the maintenance setting, largely as a consequence of high rates of drop-off historically within myeloma trials but improved outcomes have seen larger numbers of participants with samples at later timepoints. Patients and Methods. This analysis aims to assess the impact of MRD on PFS amongst patients receiving maintenance or no further therapy in the NCRI Myeloma XI trial. In this study patients were randomised between thalidomide (CTD) and lenalidomide (RCD) based induction therapies. For patients with a sub-optimal response to initial therapy, induction was supplemented with sequenced bortezomib-based induction (CVD). Intensively treated patients then proceeded to an autologous transplant and then responding patients from both intensive and non-intensive arms were subsequently randomised to maintenance with lenalidomide monotherapy, lenalidomide and vorinostat or no further therapy. Bone marrow aspirates were obtained prior to maintenance randomisation (100 days post ASCT for TE and at the end of (sequenced-) induction treatment for TNE) and 6 months post maintenance randomisation. This analysis represents a subset of 389 patients (median age 63.5 years) with an informative post maintenance randomisation bone marrow aspirate. MRD was assessed using flow cytometry (sensitivity 0.004%) with a minimum of 500,000 cells evaluated with six- or eight-colour antibody combinations including CD138/CD38/CD45/CD19/CD56/CD27 in all cases and CD81/CD117 added latterly. Results. Taking the group as a whole, MRD-negativity was demonstrated in 206/389 (55.8%) and this was associated with a significant outcome advantage as the median PFS was >50 months versus 20 months for MRD-positive patients (Fig.1(a), p<0.0001, HR 0.2, 95% CI 0.11-0.37). When the pre-maintenance MRD result was also taken into account, outcome was best for patients achieving negativity post ASCT/end of treatment and remaining MRD-negative and worst for those patients who were MRD-positive post ASCT/end of treatment and remained so (Fig 1(b), p<0.0001). Conversions to MRD-negativity were seen in 32% of MRD-positive patients on maintenance compared to 4% of patients randomised to no further therapy (p=0.0045). This conversion is associated with some improvement in outcome, but this group still have inferior outcome relative to those patients achieving MRD-negativity earlier in protocol treatment. Conversions to MRD-positivity were also seen in 24 (9.5%) of 252 patients and the outcome for this patient group was similar to that of the patients who remain MRD-positive throughout (Fig. 1(b)). For those patients that remained MRD-positive, a benefit from maintenance could be demonstrated by a lower level of residual disease relative to those patients on observation (median level of neoplastic plasma cells 0.15% on maintenance vs 0.39%, p=0.04). Conclusions. We would conclude that MRD is a particularly powerful predictor of outcome in the maintenance setting and is clearly a desirable therapeutic goal in this patient group. The hazard ratio of 0.2 demonstrated here appears superior to those demonstrated in previous studies examining post induction or ASCT time-points. Approximately one third of MRD-positive patients receiving maintenance became MRD-negative and maintenance therapy also results in a decrease in disease levels in those patients remaining positive. These results support the role of MRD monitoring in assessment of the efficacy of different maintenance/consolidation strategies within clinical trials. In the longer term, a stratified approach to treatment based on sequential MRD assessments is feasible. The predictive ability of MRD during maintenance will be assessed with respect to overall survival when the primary endpoint matures in September 2017 and presented at the meeting. [Display omitted] Rawstron:BD biosciences: Patents & Royalties; Gilead: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Pawlyn:Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Janssen: Other: Travel support; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel support. Davies:Bristol-Myers: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria. Jones:Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding. Kaiser:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Other: Travel expenses; Chugai: Consultancy. Drayson:Abingdon Health: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jenner:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Support , Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Chugai: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gregory:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Jackson:Celgene: Honoraria; J&J: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Chugai: Honoraria. Morgan:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers: Consultancy, Honoraria. Owen:Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel Support; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel support; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.
AbstractList Introduction. Minimal residual disease (MRD) is a powerful predictor of outcome in multiple myeloma (MM). A recent meta-analysis has confirmed this and demonstrated a hazard ratio for PFS of 0.41; 95% CI, 0.36-0.48; P < .001 (Munshi et al, JAMA Oncol, Jan 2017). We have previously demonstrated the prognostic impact of MRD both following ASCT in transplant-eligible (TE) patients and following induction in transplant non-eligible (TNE) patients. There is more limited data on the applicability and significance of MRD assessment in the maintenance setting, largely as a consequence of high rates of drop-off historically within myeloma trials but improved outcomes have seen larger numbers of participants with samples at later timepoints. Patients and Methods. This analysis aims to assess the impact of MRD on PFS amongst patients receiving maintenance or no further therapy in the NCRI Myeloma XI trial. In this study patients were randomised between thalidomide (CTD) and lenalidomide (RCD) based induction therapies. For patients with a sub-optimal response to initial therapy, induction was supplemented with sequenced bortezomib-based induction (CVD). Intensively treated patients then proceeded to an autologous transplant and then responding patients from both intensive and non-intensive arms were subsequently randomised to maintenance with lenalidomide monotherapy, lenalidomide and vorinostat or no further therapy. Bone marrow aspirates were obtained prior to maintenance randomisation (100 days post ASCT for TE and at the end of (sequenced-) induction treatment for TNE) and 6 months post maintenance randomisation. This analysis represents a subset of 389 patients (median age 63.5 years) with an informative post maintenance randomisation bone marrow aspirate. MRD was assessed using flow cytometry (sensitivity 0.004%) with a minimum of 500,000 cells evaluated with six- or eight-colour antibody combinations including CD138/CD38/CD45/CD19/CD56/CD27 in all cases and CD81/CD117 added latterly. Results. Taking the group as a whole, MRD-negativity was demonstrated in 206/389 (55.8%) and this was associated with a significant outcome advantage as the median PFS was >50 months versus 20 months for MRD-positive patients (Fig.1(a), p<0.0001, HR 0.2, 95% CI 0.11-0.37). When the pre-maintenance MRD result was also taken into account, outcome was best for patients achieving negativity post ASCT/end of treatment and remaining MRD-negative and worst for those patients who were MRD-positive post ASCT/end of treatment and remained so (Fig 1(b), p<0.0001). Conversions to MRD-negativity were seen in 32% of MRD-positive patients on maintenance compared to 4% of patients randomised to no further therapy (p=0.0045). This conversion is associated with some improvement in outcome, but this group still have inferior outcome relative to those patients achieving MRD-negativity earlier in protocol treatment. Conversions to MRD-positivity were also seen in 24 (9.5%) of 252 patients and the outcome for this patient group was similar to that of the patients who remain MRD-positive throughout (Fig. 1(b)). For those patients that remained MRD-positive, a benefit from maintenance could be demonstrated by a lower level of residual disease relative to those patients on observation (median level of neoplastic plasma cells 0.15% on maintenance vs 0.39%, p=0.04). Conclusions. We would conclude that MRD is a particularly powerful predictor of outcome in the maintenance setting and is clearly a desirable therapeutic goal in this patient group. The hazard ratio of 0.2 demonstrated here appears superior to those demonstrated in previous studies examining post induction or ASCT time-points. Approximately one third of MRD-positive patients receiving maintenance became MRD-negative and maintenance therapy also results in a decrease in disease levels in those patients remaining positive. These results support the role of MRD monitoring in assessment of the efficacy of different maintenance/consolidation strategies within clinical trials. In the longer term, a stratified approach to treatment based on sequential MRD assessments is feasible. The predictive ability of MRD during maintenance will be assessed with respect to overall survival when the primary endpoint matures in September 2017 and presented at the meeting. [Display omitted] Rawstron:BD biosciences: Patents & Royalties; Gilead: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Pawlyn:Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Janssen: Other: Travel support; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel support. Davies:Bristol-Myers: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria. Jones:Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding. Kaiser:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Other: Travel expenses; Chugai: Consultancy. Drayson:Abingdon Health: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jenner:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Support , Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Chugai: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gregory:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Jackson:Celgene: Honoraria; J&J: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Chugai: Honoraria. Morgan:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers: Consultancy, Honoraria. Owen:Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel Support; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel support; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.
Abstract Introduction. Minimal residual disease (MRD) is a powerful predictor of outcome in multiple myeloma (MM). A recent meta-analysis has confirmed this and demonstrated a hazard ratio for PFS of 0.41; 95% CI, 0.36-0.48; P < .001 (Munshi et al, JAMA Oncol, Jan 2017). We have previously demonstrated the prognostic impact of MRD both following ASCT in transplant-eligible (TE) patients and following induction in transplant non-eligible (TNE) patients. There is more limited data on the applicability and significance of MRD assessment in the maintenance setting, largely as a consequence of high rates of drop-off historically within myeloma trials but improved outcomes have seen larger numbers of participants with samples at later timepoints. Patients and Methods. This analysis aims to assess the impact of MRD on PFS amongst patients receiving maintenance or no further therapy in the NCRI Myeloma XI trial. In this study patients were randomised between thalidomide (CTD) and lenalidomide (RCD) based induction therapies. For patients with a sub-optimal response to initial therapy, induction was supplemented with sequenced bortezomib-based induction (CVD). Intensively treated patients then proceeded to an autologous transplant and then responding patients from both intensive and non-intensive arms were subsequently randomised to maintenance with lenalidomide monotherapy, lenalidomide and vorinostat or no further therapy. Bone marrow aspirates were obtained prior to maintenance randomisation (100 days post ASCT for TE and at the end of (sequenced-) induction treatment for TNE) and 6 months post maintenance randomisation. This analysis represents a subset of 389 patients (median age 63.5 years) with an informative post maintenance randomisation bone marrow aspirate. MRD was assessed using flow cytometry (sensitivity 0.004%) with a minimum of 500,000 cells evaluated with six- or eight-colour antibody combinations including CD138/CD38/CD45/CD19/CD56/CD27 in all cases and CD81/CD117 added latterly. Results. Taking the group as a whole, MRD-negativity was demonstrated in 206/389 (55.8%) and this was associated with a significant outcome advantage as the median PFS was >50 months versus 20 months for MRD-positive patients (Fig.1(a), p<0.0001, HR 0.2, 95% CI 0.11-0.37). When the pre-maintenance MRD result was also taken into account, outcome was best for patients achieving negativity post ASCT/end of treatment and remaining MRD-negative and worst for those patients who were MRD-positive post ASCT/end of treatment and remained so (Fig 1(b), p<0.0001). Conversions to MRD-negativity were seen in 32% of MRD-positive patients on maintenance compared to 4% of patients randomised to no further therapy (p=0.0045). This conversion is associated with some improvement in outcome, but this group still have inferior outcome relative to those patients achieving MRD-negativity earlier in protocol treatment. Conversions to MRD-positivity were also seen in 24 (9.5%) of 252 patients and the outcome for this patient group was similar to that of the patients who remain MRD-positive throughout (Fig. 1(b)). For those patients that remained MRD-positive, a benefit from maintenance could be demonstrated by a lower level of residual disease relative to those patients on observation (median level of neoplastic plasma cells 0.15% on maintenance vs 0.39%, p=0.04). Conclusions. We would conclude that MRD is a particularly powerful predictor of outcome in the maintenance setting and is clearly a desirable therapeutic goal in this patient group. The hazard ratio of 0.2 demonstrated here appears superior to those demonstrated in previous studies examining post induction or ASCT time-points. Approximately one third of MRD-positive patients receiving maintenance became MRD-negative and maintenance therapy also results in a decrease in disease levels in those patients remaining positive. These results support the role of MRD monitoring in assessment of the efficacy of different maintenance/consolidation strategies within clinical trials. In the longer term, a stratified approach to treatment based on sequential MRD assessments is feasible. The predictive ability of MRD during maintenance will be assessed with respect to overall survival when the primary endpoint matures in September 2017 and presented at the meeting. Disclosures Rawstron: BD biosciences: Patents & Royalties; Gilead: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Pawlyn: Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel support; Janssen: Other: Travel support; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel support. Davies: Bristol-Myers: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria. Jones: Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding. Kaiser: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Other: Travel expenses; Chugai: Consultancy. Drayson: Abingdon Health: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jenner: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Support , Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Chugai: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gregory: Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Jackson: Celgene: Honoraria; J&J: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Chugai: Honoraria. Morgan: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol Myers: Consultancy, Honoraria. Owen: Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel Support; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel support; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.
Author Kaiser, Martin F
Pawlyn, Charlotte
Henderson, Rowena
Striha, Alina
Owen, Roger G.
Cairns, David
Drayson, Mark T
Jackson, Graham
Davies, Faith E.
de Tute, Ruth M
Morgan, Gareth J.
Rawstron, Andy
Russell, Nigel H.
Jones, John R
Gregory, Walter M
Hockaday, Anna
Cook, Gordon
Jenner, Matthew W
Author_xml – sequence: 1
  givenname: Ruth M
  surname: de Tute
  fullname: de Tute, Ruth M
  organization: Haematological Malignancy Diagnostic Service, St. James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom
– sequence: 2
  givenname: David
  surname: Cairns
  fullname: Cairns, David
  organization: Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, Leeds, United Kingdom
– sequence: 3
  givenname: Andy
  surname: Rawstron
  fullname: Rawstron, Andy
  organization: Haematological Malignancy Diagnostic Service, St. James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom
– sequence: 4
  givenname: Charlotte
  surname: Pawlyn
  fullname: Pawlyn, Charlotte
  organization: Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, United Kingdom
– sequence: 5
  givenname: Faith E.
  surname: Davies
  fullname: Davies, Faith E.
  organization: Myeloma Institute, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR
– sequence: 6
  givenname: John R
  surname: Jones
  fullname: Jones, John R
  organization: The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
– sequence: 7
  givenname: Martin F
  surname: Kaiser
  fullname: Kaiser, Martin F
  organization: The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
– sequence: 8
  givenname: Anna
  surname: Hockaday
  fullname: Hockaday, Anna
  organization: Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, Leeds, United Kingdom
– sequence: 9
  givenname: Alina
  surname: Striha
  fullname: Striha, Alina
  organization: Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, Leeds, United Kingdom
– sequence: 10
  givenname: Rowena
  surname: Henderson
  fullname: Henderson, Rowena
  organization: Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, Leeds, United Kingdom
– sequence: 11
  givenname: Gordon
  surname: Cook
  fullname: Cook, Gordon
  organization: St James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom
– sequence: 12
  givenname: Nigel H.
  surname: Russell
  fullname: Russell, Nigel H.
  organization: Centre for Clinical Haematology, Nottingham University Hospital, Nottingham, United Kingdom
– sequence: 13
  givenname: Mark T
  surname: Drayson
  fullname: Drayson, Mark T
  organization: Institute of Immunology and Immunotherapy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
– sequence: 14
  givenname: Matthew W
  surname: Jenner
  fullname: Jenner, Matthew W
  organization: Department of Haematology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, United Kingdom
– sequence: 15
  givenname: Walter M
  surname: Gregory
  fullname: Gregory, Walter M
  organization: Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, Leeds, United Kingdom
– sequence: 16
  givenname: Graham
  surname: Jackson
  fullname: Jackson, Graham
  organization: Department of Haematology, University of Newcastle, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom
– sequence: 17
  givenname: Gareth J.
  surname: Morgan
  fullname: Morgan, Gareth J.
  organization: Myeloma Institute, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR
– sequence: 18
  givenname: Roger G.
  surname: Owen
  fullname: Owen, Roger G.
  organization: Haematological Malignancy Diagnostic Service, St. James's University Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom
BookMark eNqNkNtKw0AQhhepYK2-w-J94h6SJumdtB4KLYpVb5ft7qSOJLshmwp9e5O2DyDMMAMz8zP_d01Gzjsg5I6zmPNc3G8r7238xSWLN_umqRSPC5YMeUHGPBV5xJhgIzJmjE2jpMj4FbkO4YcxnkiRjkm7Roe1rug7BLT7vllgAB2AoqPdN9C1RteB084A3UDXodsNo_UBKl_rGX1r_c750KGhG9w5LNEcd7WzdFk32nTUl3TVK1RofY0WbshlqasAt-c6IZ9Pjx_zl2j1-rycP6wiw4uURXZbSia5SLVNdC6EzkpeaGMyaSExMmd51scUSqPTqTE5T3ORSJ1ZaTiwvJATMjvpmtaH0EKpmra32h4UZ2qgp4701EBPnempntyQ_fHidAz9h78IrQoGoTdmsQXTKevxPzJ_Q52B8A
CitedBy_id crossref_primary_10_1016_j_clml_2018_02_015
crossref_primary_10_1177_2040620718775629
crossref_primary_10_3390_cancers13184666
crossref_primary_10_3390_jcm10112261
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_bbmt_2018_11_001
crossref_primary_10_1038_s41408_020_0273_x
crossref_primary_10_1182_blood_2021013199
crossref_primary_10_1038_s41408_021_00498_0
crossref_primary_10_1111_bjh_18324
crossref_primary_10_3390_jcm9072142
crossref_primary_10_1038_s41375_020_0724_1
crossref_primary_10_1007_s11899_019_0497_7
ContentType Journal Article
Copyright 2017 American Society of Hematology
Copyright_xml – notice: 2017 American Society of Hematology
DBID 6I.
AAFTH
AAYXX
CITATION
DOI 10.1182/blood.V130.Suppl_1.904.904
DatabaseName ScienceDirect Open Access Titles
Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access
CrossRef
DatabaseTitle CrossRef
DatabaseTitleList
CrossRef
DeliveryMethod fulltext_linktorsrc
Discipline Medicine
Chemistry
Biology
Anatomy & Physiology
EISSN 1528-0020
EndPage 904
ExternalDocumentID 10_1182_blood_V130_Suppl_1_904_904
S0006497119814209
GroupedDBID ---
-~X
.55
1CY
23N
2WC
34G
39C
4.4
53G
5GY
5RE
5VS
6I.
6J9
AAEDW
AAFTH
AAXUO
ABOCM
ABVKL
ACGFO
ADBBV
AENEX
AFOSN
AHPSJ
ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS
AMRAJ
BAWUL
BTFSW
CS3
DIK
DU5
E3Z
EBS
EJD
EX3
F5P
FDB
FRP
GS5
GX1
IH2
K-O
KQ8
L7B
LSO
MJL
N9A
OK1
P2P
R.V
RHF
RHI
ROL
SJN
THE
TR2
TWZ
W2D
W8F
WH7
WOQ
WOW
X7M
YHG
YKV
ZA5
0R~
0SF
AALRI
AAYXX
ADVLN
AFETI
AITUG
AKRWK
CITATION
H13
ID FETCH-LOGICAL-c1950-dbf303125ad4a822a7f19acc73de4c380870876efca56cc8158243a7d3c1e0893
IEDL.DBID ABVKL
ISSN 0006-4971
IngestDate Thu Sep 12 16:41:17 EDT 2024
Fri Feb 23 02:43:17 EST 2024
IsDoiOpenAccess true
IsOpenAccess true
IsPeerReviewed true
IsScholarly true
Issue Suppl_1
Language English
License This article is made available under the Elsevier license.
LinkModel DirectLink
MergedId FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c1950-dbf303125ad4a822a7f19acc73de4c380870876efca56cc8158243a7d3c1e0893
OpenAccessLink https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006497119814209
PageCount 1
ParticipantIDs crossref_primary_10_1182_blood_V130_Suppl_1_904_904
elsevier_sciencedirect_doi_10_1182_blood_V130_Suppl_1_904_904
PublicationCentury 2000
PublicationDate 2017-12-08
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD 2017-12-08
PublicationDate_xml – month: 12
  year: 2017
  text: 2017-12-08
  day: 08
PublicationDecade 2010
PublicationTitle Blood
PublicationYear 2017
Publisher Elsevier Inc
Publisher_xml – name: Elsevier Inc
SSID ssj0014325
Score 2.2875738
Snippet Introduction. Minimal residual disease (MRD) is a powerful predictor of outcome in multiple myeloma (MM). A recent meta-analysis has confirmed this and...
Abstract Introduction. Minimal residual disease (MRD) is a powerful predictor of outcome in multiple myeloma (MM). A recent meta-analysis has confirmed this...
SourceID crossref
elsevier
SourceType Aggregation Database
Publisher
StartPage 904
Title Minimal Residual Disease in the Maintenance Setting in Myeloma: Prognostic Significance and Impact of Lenalidomide
URI https://dx.doi.org/10.1182/blood.V130.Suppl_1.904.904
Volume 130
hasFullText 1
inHoldings 1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
link http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1LS8QwEA6i-LiIrorrixzEW3fbJu22god1VXxVxBfeQpqkUnBbWfXgv3cmTUXBg-AhUNqmhEwy3zfNPAjZVTrCrGi5lwAaeJzFsZdGCra7rwGcgzBvAmmzq_j0np8_Ro9TZNTGwqBbpdP9jU632trd6bvZ7L-UJcb4ApymgwDM5oCHGMQ3EwL7hd05Mzx8uLj8OkzgLGwKGYDxjB1c7lFg1n3rHd57AEXes1U0RdBLfY7td5z6hj0nS2TRkUY6bMa1TKZM1SErwwoM5vEH3aPWjdP-H--Q2cP2an7UFnPrkLnMnaGvkElWVuUYPndjXm0kFj1qDmloWVGggzSTmEMCE3EYemusXzQ-yj7Mcz2W-_R6UqN3HoyF3pZPFfoa2XdlpemZDbqkdUEvDVJ8XY9LbVbJ_cnx3ejUc5UXPIVlYT2dFwBtwH2k5hIohBwUQSqVGjBtuGKJD7sc1KgplIxipZIgSkLO5EAzFRgfKNAama7qyqwTmqQ5UFCj0pzFvABCkuBhLDdMysA3RdwlrJ1n8dIk2BDWMElCYaUjUDrCSUeAZLB1yUErEvFjuQhAgj_03_hn_02yECK-o19LskWm3ybvZhvYyVu-41bfJ8zP4nU
link.rule.ids 315,783,787,27581,27936,27937,45675
linkProvider Elsevier
linkToHtml http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1La9wwEB7ChiS9lGbTkvQVHUpv3rUt-VXoYbNN2DTrEJoHuQlZkouha4dtesi_74wslwZyKPQgMLZlhEaa7xtrHgAftEkoK1oV5IgGgeBpGhSJxu0eGgTnKK76QNryPF1ci6-3ye0GzIdYGHKr9Lq_1-lOW_s7Uz-b07umoRhfhNMii9BsjkRMQXybyAayZASbs6Obs-WfwwTB476QARrP1MHnHkVmPXXe4ZMbVOQTV0VTRpMiFNSexqm_sOfkBTz3pJHN-nHtwoZtx7A3a9FgXj2wj8y5cbr_42PYOhquduZDMbcxbJf-DH0P1mXTNiv83Df700VisS_9IQ1rWoZ0kJWKckhQIg7LLq3zi6ZH5YP90a3UJ3ax7sg7D8fCLpvvLfkauXdVa9ipC7pkXc2Wlii-6VaNsS_h-uT4ar4IfOWFQFNZ2MBUNUIbch9lhEIKobI6KpTWGTdWaJ6HuMtRjdpaqyTVOo-SPBZcZYbryIZIgV7BqO1auw8sLyqkoFYXFU9FjYQkp8NYYblSUWjr9AD4MM_yrk-wIZ1hksfSSUeSdKSXjkTJUDuAz4NI5KPlIhEJ_qH_6__sfwg7i6tyKZen52dv4FlMWE8-LvlbGN2vf9l3yFTuq_d-Jf4GlKHlYw
openUrl ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Minimal+Residual+Disease+in+the+Maintenance+Setting+in+Myeloma%3A+Prognostic+Significance+and+Impact+of+Lenalidomide&rft.jtitle=Blood&rft.au=de+Tute%2C+Ruth+M&rft.au=Cairns%2C+David&rft.au=Rawstron%2C+Andy&rft.au=Pawlyn%2C+Charlotte&rft.date=2017-12-08&rft.issn=0006-4971&rft.eissn=1528-0020&rft.volume=130&rft.issue=Suppl_1&rft.spage=904&rft.epage=904&rft_id=info:doi/10.1182%2Fblood.V130.Suppl_1.904.904&rft.externalDBID=n%2Fa&rft.externalDocID=10_1182_blood_V130_Suppl_1_904_904
thumbnail_l http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=0006-4971&client=summon
thumbnail_m http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=0006-4971&client=summon
thumbnail_s http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=0006-4971&client=summon