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...
Saved in:
Published in | Blood Vol. 130; no. Suppl_1; p. 904 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Elsevier Inc
08.12.2017
|
Online Access | Get 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 |