Impact of minimal residual disease standardised assessment by FDG-PET/CT in transplant-eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma enrolled in the imaging sub-study of the FORTE trial

Le résumé fourni par la source

Background 18F-FDG-PET/CT is the current standard technique to define minimal residual disease (MRD) outside the bone marrow (BM) in multiple myeloma (MM), recently standardised applying the Deauville scores (DS) to focal lesions (FS) and bone marrow uptake (BMS) and defining the complete metabolic response (CMR) as uptake below the liver background (DS <4). Methods In this analysis, we aimed at confirming the role of CMR, and complementarity with BM multiparameter flow cytometry (MFC) at 10 −5 , in an independent cohort of newly diagnosed transplant-eligible MM patients previously enrolled in the phase II randomised FORTE trial. 109 of the 474 global patients enrolled in the trial between February 23, 2015, and April 5, 2017, who had paired PET/CT (performed at baseline [B] and preceding maintenance therapy [PM]) and MFC evaluation, were included in this analysis. Findings At B, 93% of patients had focal lesions within the bones (FS ≥4 in 89%) and 99% increased BM uptake (BMS ≥4 in 61%). At PM, CMR was achieved in 63% of patients, which was a strong predictor for prolonged PFS in univariate analysis at landmark time PM (HR 0.40, P = 0.0065) and in Cox multivariate analysis (HR 0.31, P = 0.0023). Regarding OS, a trend in favour of CMR was present in univariate (HR 0.44, P = 0.094), and Cox multivariate model (HR 0.17, P = 0.0037). Patients achieving both PET/CT CMR and MFC negativity at PM showed significantly extended PFS in univariate (HR 0.45, P = 0.020) and multivariate analysis (HR 0.41, P = 0.015). Interpretation We herein confirm the applicability and validity of DS criteria to define CMR and its prognostic relevance and complementarity with MFC at the BM level. Funding Amgen, Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb, Italian Ministry of Health (RC-2022-2773423).

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.