Show simple item record

 
dc.contributorVall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus
dc.contributor.authorMedina, Alejandro
dc.contributor.authorPuig, Noemi
dc.contributor.authorFlores-Montero, Juan
dc.contributor.authorJimenez, Cristina
dc.contributor.authorSarasquete, Maria Eugenia
dc.contributor.authorGarcia-Alvarez, María
dc.contributor.authorGironella Mesa, Mercedes
dc.date.accessioned2021-09-09T05:52:38Z
dc.date.available2021-09-09T05:52:38Z
dc.date.issued2020-10-30
dc.identifier.citationMedina A, Puig N, Flores-Montero J, Jimenez C, Sarasquete ME, Garcia-Alvarez M, 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 Oct 30;10:108.
dc.identifier.issn2044-5385
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11351/6281
dc.descriptionMyeloma; Risk factors
dc.description.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 next-generation 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.
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherSpringer Nature
dc.relation.ispartofseriesBlood Cancer Journal;10
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.sourceScientia
dc.subjectMieloma múltiple
dc.subjectNucleòtids - Anàlisi
dc.subject.meshMultiple Myeloma
dc.subject.meshSequence Analysis
dc.titleComparison of next-generation sequencing (NGS) and next-generation flow (NGF) for minimal residual disease (MRD) assessment in multiple myeloma
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.identifier.doi10.1038/s41408-020-00377-0
dc.subject.decsmieloma múltiple
dc.subject.decsanálisis de secuencias
dc.relation.publishversionhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41408-020-00377-0
dc.type.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.audienceProfessionals
dc.contributor.organismesInstitut Català de la Salut
dc.contributor.authoraffiliation[Medina A, Puig N, Jimenez C, Sarasquete ME, Garcia-Alvarez M] Departamento de Hematología, Hospital Universitario de Salamanca (HUSA/ IBSAL), CIBERONC, CIC-IBMCC (USAL-CSIC), Salamanca, Spain. [Flores-Montero J] Centro de Investigación del Cáncer-IBMCC (USAL-CSIC), CIBERONC, Salamanca, Spain. [Gironella M] Vall d’Hebron Hospital Universitari, Barcelona, Spain
dc.identifier.pmid33127891
dc.identifier.wos000588057900002
dc.rights.accessrightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record