Page 198 - 2021_12-Haematologica-web

Letters to the Editor
Received: April 12, 2021.
Accepted: August 4, 2021.
Pre-published: August 12, 2021. Disclosures: no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Contributions: DB, MS and CS conceived and developed the study; AS performed imaging studies; LC and DA performed pathology and MRD assessment; MSH, MK, RP, AE, AAM, PM, YO, LY, SG, ST, MZ, FvR, GT and CS provided study material or patients; DB, MB, GT and CS wrote the paper. All authors reviewed and approved the paper.
Funding: work completed by CS was funded the National Institutes of Health grants P20GM109005.
References
1. Kristinsson SY, Anderson WF, Landgren O. Improved long-term survival in multiple myeloma up to the age of 80 years. Leukemia. 2014; 28(6):1346-1348.
2. Continued improvement in survival in multiple myeloma: changes in early mortality and outcomes in older patients. Leukemia. 2014; 28(5):1122-1128.
3. Schinke M, Ihorst G, Duyster J, Wasch R, Schumacher M, Engelhardt M. Risk of disease recurrence and survival in patients with multiple myelo- ma: a German Study Group analysis using a conditional survival approach with long-term follow-up of 815 patients. Cancer. 2020; 126(15):3504-3515.
4. Fonseca R, Monge J, Dimopoulos MA. Staging and prognostication of multiple myeloma. Expert Rev Hematol. 2014;7(1):21-31.
5. Hillengass J, Usmani S, Rajkumar SV, et al. International myeloma work-
ing group consensus recommendations on imaging in monoclonal plas-
ma cell disorders. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(6):e302-e312.
6.Sonneveld P, Broijl A. Treatment of relapsed and refractory multiple
myeloma. Haematologica. 2016;101(8):995.
7. 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 applications. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(15):3980- 3993.
8. Avet-Loiseau H, San-Miguel J, Casneuf T, et al. Evaluation of sustained minimal residual disease negativity with Daratumumab-combination regimens in relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma: analysis of POLLUX and CASTOR. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(10):1139-1149.
9. Schinke C, Hoering A, Wang H, et al. The prognostic value of the depth of response in multiple myeloma depends on the time of assessment, risk status and molecular subtype. Haematologica. 2017;102(8):e313-e316.
10. Jamet B, Bailly C, Carlier T, et al. Interest of Pet imaging in multiple myeloma. Front Med. 2019;6:69.
11. Chretien ML, Hebraud B, Cances-Lauwers V, et al. Age is a prognostic factor even among patients with multiple myeloma younger than 66 years treated with high-dose melphalan: the IFM experience on 2316 patients. Haematologica. 2014;99(7):1236-1238.
12. Palumbo A, Bringhen S, Falco P, et al. Time to first disease progression, but not beta2-microglobulin, predicts outcome in myeloma patients who receive thalidomide as salvage therapy. Cancer. 2007;110(4):824-829.
13. Rasche L, Alapat D, Kumar M, et al. Combination of flow cytometry and functional imaging for monitoring of residual disease in myeloma. Leukemia. 2019;33(7):1713-1722.
14. Chim CS, Kumar SK, Orlowski RZ, et al. Management of relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma: novel agents, antibodies, immunotherapies and beyond. Leukemia. 2018;32(2):252-262.
15. Fulciniti M, Munshi NC, Martinez-Lopez J. Deep response in multiple myeloma: a critical review. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:832049.
3218
haematologica | 2021; 106(12)