Page 43 - 2018_11-Haematologica-web

EMN recommendations on MM diagnosis and monitoring
guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and fol- low-up. Ann Oncol. 2017;28(suppl_4):iv52- iv61.
50. Messiou C, Kaiser M. Whole body diffusion weighted MRI – a new view of myeloma. Br J Haematol. 2015;171(1):29-37.
51. Hillengass J, Bauerle T, Bartl R, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging for non-inva- sive and quantitative monitoring of bone marrow infiltration in patients with mono- clonal plasma cell disease: a comparative study with histology. Br J Haematol. 2011;153(6):721-728.
52. Hillengass J, Fechtner K, Weber M-A, et al. Prognostic significance of focal lesions in whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in patients with asymptomatic multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(9):1606- 1610.
53. Cavo M, Terpos E, Nanni C, et al. Role of 18F-FDG PET/CT in the diagnosis and man- agement of multiple myeloma and other plasma cell disorders: a consensus statement by the International Myeloma Working Group. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(4):e206-e217.
54. Zamagni E, Patriarca F, Nanni C, et al. Prognostic relevance of 18-F FDG PET/CT in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated with up-front autologous transplan- tation. Blood. 2011;118(23):5989-5995.
55. Moreau P, Attal M, Caillot D, et al. Prospective evaluation of magnetic reso- nance imaging and [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography at diagnosis and before mainte- nance therapy in symptomatic patients with multiple myeloma included in the IFM/DFCI 2009 trial: results of the IMAJEM Study. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(25):2911-2918.
Index as a valid prognostic instrument in a large cohort of 801 multiple myeloma patients. Haematologica. 2017;102(5):910- 921.
64. Mateos MV, Oriol A, Martinez-Lopez J, et al. Outcomes with two different schedules of bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (VMP) for previously untreated multiple myeloma: matched pair analysis using long- term follow-up data from the phase 3 VISTA and PETHEMA/GEM05 trials. Ann Hematol. 2016;95(12):2033-2041.
65. Larocca A, Dold SM, Zweegman S, et al. Patient-centered practice in elderly myeloma patients: an overview and consensus from the European Myeloma Network (EMN). Leukemia. 2018 Apr 25. [Epub ahead of print]
66. Bhutani M, Zhang Q, Friend R, et al. Investigation of a gene signature to predict response to immunomodulatory derivatives for patients with multiple myeloma: an exploratory, retrospective study using microarray datasets from prospective clini- cal trials. Lancet Haematol. 2017;4(9):e443- e451.
67. Van Vliet MH Kuiper R, Broijl A, Van Duin M, et al. Proteasome inhibitor treatment response can be predicted by gene expres- sion profiling in multiple myeloma. Haematologica. 2014;99(S1):494.
68. Broyl A, Kuiper R, van Duin M, et al. High cereblon expression is associated with better survival in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma treated with thalidomide maintenance. Blood. 2013;121(4):624-627.
69. Heintel D, Rocci A, Ludwig H, et al. High expression of cereblon (CRBN) is associated with improved clinical response in patients with multiple myeloma treated with lenalidomide and dexamethasone. Br J Haematol. 2013;161(5):695-700.
70. Schuster SR, Kortuem KM, Zhu YX, et al. The clinical significance of cereblon expres- sion in multiple myeloma. Leuk Res. 2014;38(1):23-28.
71. Zhu YX, Braggio E, Shi C-X, et al. Identification of cereblon-binding proteins and relationship with response and survival after IMiDs in multiple myeloma. Blood. 2014;124(4):536-545.
72. Gandhi AK, Mendy D, Waldman M, et al. Measuring cereblon as a biomarker of response or resistance to lenalidomide and pomalidomide requires use of standardized reagents and understanding of gene com- plexity. Br J Haematol. 2014;164(2):233-244.
73. Kortüm KM, Mai EK, Hanafiah NH, et al. Targeted sequencing of refractory myeloma reveals a high incidence of mutations in CRBN and Ras pathway genes. Blood. 2016;128(9):1226-1233.
74. Nijhof IS, Casneuf T, van Velzen J, et al. CD38 expression and complement inhibitors affect response and resistance to daratumumab therapy in myeloma. Blood. 2016;128(7):959-970.
75. Pick M, Vainstein V, Goldschmidt N, et al. Daratumumab resistance is frequent in advanced-stage multiple myeloma patients irrespective of CD38 expression and is relat- ed to dismal prognosis. Eur J Haematol. 2018;100(5):494-501.
76. Punnoose EA, Leverson JD, Peale F, et al. Expression profile of BCL-2, BCL-XL, and MCL-1 predicts pharmacological response to the BCL-2 selective antagonist venetoclax in multiple myeloma models. Mol Cancer Ther. 2016;15(5):1132-1144.
77. Kumar S, Paiva B, Anderson KC, et al. International Myeloma Working Group con- sensus criteria for response and minimal
residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(8):e328- e346.
78. Durie BGM, Harousseau JL, Miguel JS, et al. International uniform response criteria for multiple myeloma. Leukemia. 2006;20(9): 1467-1473.
79. Lahuerta JJ, Mateos MV, Martínez-López J, et al. Influence of pre- and post-transplanta- tion responses on outcome of patients with multiple myeloma: sequential improvement of response and achievement of complete response are associated with longer survival. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(35):5775-5782.
80. van de Donk Niels WCJ, Otten Henny G, El Haddad O, et al. Interference of daratumum- ab in monitoring multiple myeloma patients using serum immunofixation electrophore- sis can be abrogated using the daratumumab IFE reflex assay (DIRA). Clin Chem Lab Med, 2016:1105.
81. Paiva B, Corchete LA, Vidriales M-B, et al. Phenotypic and genomic analysis of multi- ple myeloma minimal residual disease tumor cells: a new model to understand chemoresistance. Blood. 2016;127(15):1896- 1906.
82. de Tute RM, Rawstron AC, Gregory WM, et al. Minimal residual disease following autol- ogous stem cell transplant in myeloma: impact on outcome is independent of induc- tion regimen. Haematologica. 2016;101(2): e69-e71.
83. Paiva B, Martinez-Lopez J, Vidriales M-B, et al. Comparison of immunofixation, serum free light chain, and immunophenotyping for response evaluation and prognostication in multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(12):1627-1633.
84. Rawstron AC, Child JA, de Tute RM, et al. Minimal residual disease assessed by multi- parameter flow cytometry in multiple myeloma: impact on outcome in the Medical Research Council Myeloma IX study. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(20):2540-2547.
85. 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;31:2094.
86. Tonegawa S. Somatic generation of anti- body diversity. Nature. 1983;302(5909):575- 581.
87. van der Velden VHJ, Cazzaniga G, Schrauder A, et al. Analysis of minimal residual disease by Ig//TCR gene rearrange- ments: guidelines for interpretation of real- time quantitative PCR data. Leukemia. 2007;21(4):604-611.
88. Logan AC, Gao H, Wang C, et al. High- throughput VDJ sequencing for quantifica- tion of minimal residual disease in chronic lymphocytic leukemia and immune recon- stitution assessment. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2011;108(52):21194-21199.
89. Martinez-Lopez J, Fernández-Redondo E, García-Sánz R, et al. Clinical applicability and prognostic significance of molecular response assessed by fluorescent-PCR of immunoglobulin genes in multiple myelo- ma. Results from a GEM/PETHEMA study. Br J Haematol. 2013;163(5):581-589.
90. Martinez-Lopez J, Lahuerta JJ, Pepin F, et al. Prognostic value of deep sequencing method for minimal residual disease detection in multiple myeloma. Blood. 2014;123(20): 3073-3079.
91. Avet-Loiseau H, Corre J, Lauwers-Cances V, et al. Evaluation of minimal residual disease (MRD) by next generation sequencing (NGS) is highly predictive of progression free survival in the IFM/DFCI 2009 Trial.
56. Anderson KC, Auclair D, Kelloff GJ, et al. The role of minimal residual disease testing in myeloma treatment selection and drug development: current value and future appli- cations. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(15):3980- 3993.
57. Sanchez E, Li M, Kitto A, et al. Serum B‐cell maturation antigen is elevated in multiple myeloma and correlates with disease status and survival. Br J Haematol. 2012;158(6):727-738.
58. Greipp PR, San Miguel J, Durie BG, et al. International Staging System for multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(15):3412- 3420.
59. Palumbo A, Avet-Loiseau H, Oliva S, et al. Revised International Staging System for multiple myeloma: a report from International Myeloma Working Group. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(26):2863-2869.
60. Moreau P, Cavo M, Sonneveld P, et al. Combination of International Scoring System 3, high lactate dehydrogenase, and t(4;14) and/or del(17p) identifies patients with multiple myeloma (MM) treated with front-line autologous stem-cell transplanta- tion at high risk of early MM progression– related death. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(20): 2173-2180.
61. Palumbo A, Bringhen S, Mateos MV, et al. Geriatric assessment predicts survival and toxicities in elderly myeloma patients: an International Myeloma Working Group report. Blood. 2015;125(13):2068-2074.
62. Engelhardt M, Dold SM, Ihorst G, et al. Geriatric assessment in multiple myeloma patients: validation of the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) score and comparison with other common comor- bidity scores. Haematologica. 2016;101(9): 1110-1119.
63. Engelhardt M, Domm A-S, Dold SM, et al. A concise revised Myeloma Comorbidity
haematologica | 2018; 103(11)
1783