Abstract

In multiple myeloma (MM), the impact of complete response (CR) could be shown only after introduction of high-dose therapy plus autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). In the context of ASCT, achieving CR (negative immunofixation and normal bone marrow) or at least very good partial response is associated with longer progression-free survival and in most studies longer survival. With novel agents, high CR rates are achieved and this prognostic impact of CR is being shown as well, both in relapsed and in newly diagnosed MM. However the benefit of CR achievement depends on the type of treatment and is not identical for all patients. In elderly patients, treatments inducing more CR may be more toxic. Although CR achievement is necessary in patients with poor-risk disease, it might not be as critical for long survival in more indolent MM. CR achievement is not the only objective of treatment because it is possible to further improve the depth of response and the outcome by continuing treatment after CR achievement. Finally, there are several levels of CR and in the future it will be necessary to confirm the prognostic impact of immunophenotypic or molecular CR or of CR defined by imaging procedures.

Introduction

In many hematologic malignancies, there is a correlation between the achievement of complete response (CR) and the outcome. This correlation has been shown for many years in acute leukemias or in high-grade lymphomas. In more chronic malignancies, such as follicular lymphomas or chronic lymphocytic leukemia, it was difficult to obtain CR with conventional chemotherapy. The correlation between a better quality of response and a better disease control was shown only when recent therapeutic improvements increased the CR rate.1-3 

In multiple myeloma (MM), the CR rate was very low with conventional chemotherapy and the majority of clinical studies failed to show a significant influence of the degree of response on survival.4-6  The survival benefit for patients achieving CR could be demonstrated only in one large study from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group on 628 patients.7  In fact, the prognostic impact of CR achievement was considered mostly after introduction of high-dose therapy (HDT) plus autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT).8,9  Compared with conventional chemotherapy, HDT increased not only the response rate but also the CR rate, which translated to at least a longer progression-free survival (PFS) in most randomized studies.10  More recently, high CR rates were obtained using novel therapies and the prognostic impact of CR achievement is being shown in this setting as well.11,12 

Definition of complete response

When HDT was introduced in the treatment of MM, CR was first defined as the disappearance of the M-component on serum and/or urine electrophoresis with 5% or fewer plasma cells on bone marrow aspiration.13 

Later, when large series of patients treated with HDT supported by ASCT became available, it appeared that it was possible to obtain negative immunofixation, which is more sensitive than electrophoresis. More recently, it has been shown that serum-free light chain assay allows for quantitative monitoring of MM patients, especially in oligosecretory MM.14  The different techniques used to define CR are shown in Table 1.

Table 1

Techniques to measure response to treatment in multiple myeloma

Comments
Currently used techniques  
    Bone marrow aspiration 
  • Easy

  • Inexpensive

  • Painful (requires local anesthesia)

  • Not always performed in multicenter studies

  • Plasma cell infiltration often underestimated (blood dilution, heterogeneous involvement)

 
    Bone marrow biopsy 
  • Easy

  • Inexpensive

  • Painful (requires local anesthesia/analgesia)

  • Necessary if bone marrow aspiration fails

 
    Serum/24-h urine electrophoresis (agarose gel or capillary zone) 
  • Easy

  • Inexpensive

  • Lowest detected level of M-component: 0.2-0.6 g/L

  • 24-h urine collection not always complete

 
    Immunofixation (serum/urine) 
  • Easy

  • More expensive than electrophoresis

  • Not quantitative

  • Lowest detected level of M-component: 0.12–0.25 g/L

 
    Serum free light chain assay (and k/λ ratio) 
  • More expensive than immunofixation

  • Necessary for response assessment in oligo/nonsecretory myeloma

  • Useful in light-chain myeloma (but no correlation between FLC and urine electrophoresis)

  • Necessary for defining stringent CR

 
Techniques under evaluation  
    Imaging techniques (MRI, PET scan) 
  • Expensive

  • PET scan not available everywhere

  • May detect nonsecretory tumor masses

 
    Bone marrow immunochemistry/fluorescence 
  • Detects monoclonal plasma cells

  • Necessary for defining stringent CR

  • More expensive than bone marrow cytology/histology

 
    Bone marrow immunophenotyping (multiparameter flow cytometry) 
  • Expensive

  • Highly sensitive (10−4)

  • Requires specialized labs (not validated at the multicenter level)

 
    Bone marrow molecular remission assessment (allelic-specific oligonucleotide RQ-PCR) 
  • The most sensitive technique (up to 10−6)

  • Expensive and cumbersome

  • Available at a limited number of specialized centers

 
Comments
Currently used techniques  
    Bone marrow aspiration 
  • Easy

  • Inexpensive

  • Painful (requires local anesthesia)

  • Not always performed in multicenter studies

  • Plasma cell infiltration often underestimated (blood dilution, heterogeneous involvement)

 
    Bone marrow biopsy 
  • Easy

  • Inexpensive

  • Painful (requires local anesthesia/analgesia)

  • Necessary if bone marrow aspiration fails

 
    Serum/24-h urine electrophoresis (agarose gel or capillary zone) 
  • Easy

  • Inexpensive

  • Lowest detected level of M-component: 0.2-0.6 g/L

  • 24-h urine collection not always complete

 
    Immunofixation (serum/urine) 
  • Easy

  • More expensive than electrophoresis

  • Not quantitative

  • Lowest detected level of M-component: 0.12–0.25 g/L

 
    Serum free light chain assay (and k/λ ratio) 
  • More expensive than immunofixation

  • Necessary for response assessment in oligo/nonsecretory myeloma

  • Useful in light-chain myeloma (but no correlation between FLC and urine electrophoresis)

  • Necessary for defining stringent CR

 
Techniques under evaluation  
    Imaging techniques (MRI, PET scan) 
  • Expensive

  • PET scan not available everywhere

  • May detect nonsecretory tumor masses

 
    Bone marrow immunochemistry/fluorescence 
  • Detects monoclonal plasma cells

  • Necessary for defining stringent CR

  • More expensive than bone marrow cytology/histology

 
    Bone marrow immunophenotyping (multiparameter flow cytometry) 
  • Expensive

  • Highly sensitive (10−4)

  • Requires specialized labs (not validated at the multicenter level)

 
    Bone marrow molecular remission assessment (allelic-specific oligonucleotide RQ-PCR) 
  • The most sensitive technique (up to 10−6)

  • Expensive and cumbersome

  • Available at a limited number of specialized centers

 

MRI indicates magnetic resonance imaging; PET, positron emission tomography; RQ-PCR, real-time quantitative–polymerase chain reaction.

Two classifications of response to treatment are currently used. According to the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) criteria for evaluating response, CR is defined by a negative immunofixation plus a normal bone marrow evaluation.15  Patients with a normal electrophoresis but a positive immunofixation are considered as having near-CR (n-CR).16  Because n-CR is sometimes difficult to assess, in the case of very small spikes (Figure 1A-B) or in the case of post-ASCT oligoclonal gammopathies17  (Figure 1C), the Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome introduced the concept of very good partial remission (VGPR).18  In the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) uniform criteria that have been adapted from the EBMT criteria and are currently proposed as a new standard,19  n-CR and VGPR have been brought together in the VGPR category and the level of stringent CR has been introduced. Currently used definitions of CR are shown in Table 2.

Figure 1

Complete response assessment by electrophoresis: examples of pitfalls. Patient with an initial spike in the gammaglobulins region (M-IgG) (A) was first considered in n-CR (positive immunofixation and normal electrophoresis). The tracing was reviewed by an independent expert committee who noticed the persistence of a small spike (B, ) and reclassified this case as VGPR. (C) Post-ASCT oligoclonal gammopathy (). Because one of the small spikes corresponded to the same isotype as the original M-component, this patient was considered in VGPR.

Figure 1

Complete response assessment by electrophoresis: examples of pitfalls. Patient with an initial spike in the gammaglobulins region (M-IgG) (A) was first considered in n-CR (positive immunofixation and normal electrophoresis). The tracing was reviewed by an independent expert committee who noticed the persistence of a small spike (B, ) and reclassified this case as VGPR. (C) Post-ASCT oligoclonal gammopathy (). Because one of the small spikes corresponded to the same isotype as the original M-component, this patient was considered in VGPR.

Table 2

Current definition of complete remission

EBMT criteria,* Bladé et al15 IMWG uniform criteria, Durie et al19 
sCR ND CR plus normal FLC ratio Absence of clonal plasma cells by Immunochemistry or fluorescence 
CR 
  • Absence of M protein in serum and urine by IFX

  • < 5% bone marrow plasma cells

  • No increase of lytic bone lesions

  • Disappearance of soft issue plasmacytomas

 
Same definition 
VGPR ND Serum and urine M protein detectable by IFX but not on electrophoresis or 90% or greater reduction in serum M protein plus urine M-protein < 100 mg per 24 h 
EBMT criteria,* Bladé et al15 IMWG uniform criteria, Durie et al19 
sCR ND CR plus normal FLC ratio Absence of clonal plasma cells by Immunochemistry or fluorescence 
CR 
  • Absence of M protein in serum and urine by IFX

  • < 5% bone marrow plasma cells

  • No increase of lytic bone lesions

  • Disappearance of soft issue plasmacytomas

 
Same definition 
VGPR ND Serum and urine M protein detectable by IFX but not on electrophoresis or 90% or greater reduction in serum M protein plus urine M-protein < 100 mg per 24 h 

sCR indicates stringent CR; ND, not defined; CR, complete response; FLC, free light chain; IFX, immunofixation; and VGPR, very good partial response.

*

Maintained at least 6 weeks.

Two consecutive assessments before any new therapy.

Correlation between the depth of response and the outcome

The comparison of studies in which the prognostic impact of the depth of response has been evaluated is not that easy, because of different definitions of CR. In some studies CR has been stringently defined, whereas in others CR represents the addition of patients with CR and with near-CR. Recently, the achievement of at least VGPR according to IMWG uniform criteria has been more frequently used because it appeared as a simple and yet robust surrogate marker of the outcome and because it concerns more patients than CR, even with modern treatments using novel agents with or without ASCT.20  Another issue is the type of comparison: in some studies patients with CR (or CR plus VGPR) are compared with patients with partial remission, whereas in others they are compared with patients without CR (including patients with stable or progressive disease). Obviously the difference in favor of CR is more marked if patients with progressive disease are included in the comparator arm. Moreover, some studies were prospective and included homogeneously treated patients; others were retrospective analysis of patients treated more heterogeneously. Finally, some investigators consider that landmark analysis should be performed to correctly assess the impact of CR achievement and avoid biases related to the time necessary to achieve CR.15,21 .

Despite these concerns, the overall message is that there is a statistical correlation between maximal response and outcome. In the HDT plus ASCT paradigm, although some of the initial studies on small number of patients failed to show a correlation between CR achievement and a better outcome,22,23  the majority of studies on single15,24-29  or double ASCT20,21,30-32  in newly diagnosed patients demonstrated that achieving CR or at least VGPR was associated with a longer PFS and usually a longer overall survival (OS; Table 3). A recent review of retrospective and prospective studies on almost 5000 patients treated with HDT indicated a highly significant association between maximal response and long-term outcome.33  This correlation was also found in large series including relapsed patients.34,35 

Table 3

Impact of maximal response on the outcome in newly diagnosed patients treated with high-dose therapy

AuthorNo. of patientsComparisonEFS/PFSOS
Single ASCT     
    Björkstrand et al24  130 NA OS benefit (CR vs non-CR) 
    Attal et al18  200 NA OS benefit (≥ VGPR vs PR) 
    Lahuerta et al25  344 EFS benefit (CR vs n-CR, VGPR and PR; no difference between n-CR, VGPR and PR OS benefit (CR vs n-CR VGPR, PR; no difference between n-CR, VGPR, PR) 
    Child et al26  407 NA OS benefit (CR vs PR) 
    Alvares et al27  387 PFS benefit (CR vs non-CR) OS benefit (CR vs non-CR) 
    O'Shea et al28  211 EFS benefit (CR vs PR) OS benefit (CR vs PR) 
    Lenhoff et al29  247 EFS benefit (CR vs non-CR) No OS benefit (CR vs non-CR) 
Double ASCT     
    Barlogie et al21  231 EFS benefit (CR vs PR) No OS benefit (CR vs PR) 
    Attal et al30  399 NA OS benefit (≥ VGPR) 
    Cavo et al31  321 EFS benefit (CR plus n-CR) OS benefit (CR plus n-CR) 
    Sonneveld et al32  303 EFS and PFS benefit (CR) No OS benefit of CR 
    Harousseau et al20  802 EFS benefit (≥ VGPR vs PR) OS benefit (≥ VGPR vs PR) 
AuthorNo. of patientsComparisonEFS/PFSOS
Single ASCT     
    Björkstrand et al24  130 NA OS benefit (CR vs non-CR) 
    Attal et al18  200 NA OS benefit (≥ VGPR vs PR) 
    Lahuerta et al25  344 EFS benefit (CR vs n-CR, VGPR and PR; no difference between n-CR, VGPR and PR OS benefit (CR vs n-CR VGPR, PR; no difference between n-CR, VGPR, PR) 
    Child et al26  407 NA OS benefit (CR vs PR) 
    Alvares et al27  387 PFS benefit (CR vs non-CR) OS benefit (CR vs non-CR) 
    O'Shea et al28  211 EFS benefit (CR vs PR) OS benefit (CR vs PR) 
    Lenhoff et al29  247 EFS benefit (CR vs non-CR) No OS benefit (CR vs non-CR) 
Double ASCT     
    Barlogie et al21  231 EFS benefit (CR vs PR) No OS benefit (CR vs PR) 
    Attal et al30  399 NA OS benefit (≥ VGPR) 
    Cavo et al31  321 EFS benefit (CR plus n-CR) OS benefit (CR plus n-CR) 
    Sonneveld et al32  303 EFS and PFS benefit (CR) No OS benefit of CR 
    Harousseau et al20  802 EFS benefit (≥ VGPR vs PR) OS benefit (≥ VGPR vs PR) 

Summary of largest studies (> 100 patients).

EFS indicates event-free survival; PFS, progression-free survival; OS, overall survival; ASCT, autologous stem cell transplantation; R, retrospective; CR, complete response; P, prospective; VGPR, very good partial response; PR, partial response; n-CR, near complete response; and NA, not available.

The better quality of response and especially the higher CR rate with HDT is the most likely explanation for the superiority of HDT compared with conventional chemotherapy. In 6 randomized trials comparing conventional chemotherapy and HDT, the higher CR or CR plus VGPR rate in the HDT arm translated to a longer PFS15,26,36-39  (although the PFS benefit was not significant in one trial due to a small number of patients39 ). In only one study was there no significant increase in the CR rate and consequently no difference in PFS and OS between HDT and conventional chemotherapy40  (Table 4).

Table 4

Randomized studies comparing conventional chemotherapy versus high-dose therapy

Author (reference)No. of patientsAge, yMedian follow upCR rate, %
Median EFS, mo
Median OS, mo
CCHDTCCHDTCCHDT
Attal et al18  200 < 65 7 y 5* 22* 18* 28* 44* 57* 
Fermand et al36  190 55-65 56 mo 5* 19* 19* 24* 50 55 
Bladé et al39  164 < 65 44 mo 11* 30* 33 42 66 61 
Palumbo et al37  195 < 70 39 mo 6* 25* 15.6* 28* 42* 58* 
Child et al26  407 < 65 42 mo 8* 44* 19* 31* 42* 54* 
Fermand et al38  190 55-65 10 y 20 CR + VGPR* 48 CR + VGPR* 19 25 48 48 
Barlogie et al40  516 ≤ 70 76 mo 15 17 7 y 14% 7 y 17% 7 y 38% 7 y 38% 
Author (reference)No. of patientsAge, yMedian follow upCR rate, %
Median EFS, mo
Median OS, mo
CCHDTCCHDTCCHDT
Attal et al18  200 < 65 7 y 5* 22* 18* 28* 44* 57* 
Fermand et al36  190 55-65 56 mo 5* 19* 19* 24* 50 55 
Bladé et al39  164 < 65 44 mo 11* 30* 33 42 66 61 
Palumbo et al37  195 < 70 39 mo 6* 25* 15.6* 28* 42* 58* 
Child et al26  407 < 65 42 mo 8* 44* 19* 31* 42* 54* 
Fermand et al38  190 55-65 10 y 20 CR + VGPR* 48 CR + VGPR* 19 25 48 48 
Barlogie et al40  516 ≤ 70 76 mo 15 17 7 y 14% 7 y 17% 7 y 38% 7 y 38% 
*

Significant.

Borderline significance.

y indicates years; CR, complete response; EFS, event-free survival; OS, overall survival; CC, conventional chemotherapy; HDT, high-dose therapy; mo, months; and VGPR, very good partial response.

The use of novel agents (thalidomide, bortezomib, lenalidomide) is also associated with a higher response rate, including CR or VGPR, compared with conventional treatment. In the setting of relapsed MM, large randomized trials comparing dexamethasone with either bortezomib or lenalidomide plus dexamethasone showed a significant superiority of the novel agent in terms of time to progression and OS, which was associated with a higher response rate and a higher CR rate.41-43  Subanalysis of the bortezomib and the lenalidomide arms confirmed that the CR achievement in these arms was associated with a significantly longer time to next therapy, PFS, and even OS with lenalidomide-dexamethasone.11,12 

In another large randomized trial comparing bortezomib alone and the combination of bortezomib plus pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, the longer PFS in the combination arm (9.3 months vs 6.5 months) might be related to a significantly higher CR plus VGPR rate (27% vs 19%), although there was no subgroup analysis of the effect of response on outcome.44 

For newly diagnosed patients, 2 published randomized trials have shown that compared with melphalan-prednisone (MP), the combination of MP plus thalidomide yielded superior PFS.45,46 . In both studies, the CR and the CR plus VGPR rates were superior as well in the combination arm. In the Vista randomized trial, the combination of MP with bortezomib was superior to MP for all efficacy parameters, including the CR rate.47  In the bortezomib arm, the CR rate was 30% (EBMT criteria), which is quite comparable with CR rates achieved with HDT. Therefore it was possible to assess the impact of CR achievement in this arm, and again patients achieving CR had significantly longer PFS that patients achieving only PR.48  However, the better tumor reduction obtained in the bortezomib arm did not translate yet into an OS advantage, due to a short follow-up and an effective salvage in the MP arm.

Is the benefit of CR achievement identical in all patients?

CR achievement is usually associated with a longer PFS compared with PR in all situations where the CR rate is high enough (HDT, novel agents both in the relapse setting and in newly diagnosed patients). However, the benefit in OS is not that clear.

First, in some studies, patients achieving CR had a longer PFS but no improvement of OS compared with patients achieving less than VGPR.21,29,32  Moreover, in some randomized trials, although in the best arm, the CR rate improvement was associated with a PFS prolongation, the OS was not significantly different either in the ASCT setting31,32,36,38  or with novel agents.49,50  This is often explained by a better salvage in the control arm. Another explanation might be that, at the time of publication, the follow-up time was too short to show significant differences in OS. For instance, in the first publication of the randomized Total Therapy 2 program from the Arkansas group, the addition of thalidomide throughout the whole treatment (induction, consolidation, and maintenance) yielded significantly more CR and longer PFS.49  But there was no OS benefit in the thalidomide arm due to a better salvage therapy with longer survival after relapse in the no-thalidomide arm. However, with longer follow-up, the OS curves diverged after 5 years and OS became better in the thalidomide arm, especially in patients with cytogenetic abnormalities.51 

The impact of CR achievement also depends on the type of treatment

The best example is the Vista trial.47  The median CR duration was 24 months in the 111 patients achieving CR with melphalan, prednisone, bortezomib versus only 12.8 months in the 13 patients achieving CR with MP. This probably means that the quality of CR achieved with melphalan, prednisone, bortezomib was better than CR achieved with MP. Another example is the IFM94 trial comparing single and double ASCT.30  Although on an intent-to-treat analysis the event-free survival and OS were significantly longer in the double ASCT arm, there was no significant difference in the CR plus VGPR rate between the 2 arms. The survival benefit might be related to an increased number of deeper responses in the more intensive arm, and when focusing on patients who did actually undergo double transplantation, the CR plus VGPR rate was indeed significantly superior in the double transplantation arm (63% vs 49%).

The impact of CR depends on the age of patients

In elderly patients, there are several studies showing that a given treatment increases the CR rate without improving even PFS. This was the case in the ASCT setting in the IFM99-06 published by the IFM.46  In this 3-arm randomized trial, the CR plus VGPR rate achieved in the intensive arm (with 2 courses of intermediate-dose melphalan supported by ASCT) was comparable with that achieved in the MP-thalidomide arm (43% and 47%, respectively) and significantly better than that achieved in the MP arm (7%). Yet, PFS was significantly superior in the MP-thalidomide arm than in the intensive arm (median PFS, 27.5 months vs 19.4 months) and there was no difference between the intensive arm and the MP arm (17.8 months). This could partly be explained by a poor feasibility of the intensive arm in this population of patients aged 65 to 75 years because only 65% could actually receive the whole planned treatment. The same was true in the randomized trial comparing thalidomide-dexamethasone and MP in elderly patients.52  The thalidomide-dexamethasone yielded superior response rate including CR rate (26% vs 13%) but there was no significant difference in PFS due to a higher toxic death rate, particularly in patients older than 75 years with poor performance status, and due to a poorer compliance to treatment in the thalidomide-dexamethasone arm. Therefore in elderly or frail patients, the use of more effective but more aggressive treatments may induce more frequent and more severe toxicities, which may overcome the potential benefit of CR achievement. This result has been previously observed in other malignancies. For instance, treatment of elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia with conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy induced more CR than low-dose cytarabine but OS was not superior due to higher toxic death rate.53 

Finally, the impact of CR depends on the clinical presentation and on the biology of MM

According to the Arkansas group's experience with tandem ASCT, patients with history of previous monoclonal gammopathy or of smoldering MM may have extended survival without achieving CR. Patients presenting initially with a smoldering course had substantially lower CR rates than the remainders but the median survival of the 2 groups was identical.54  This observation should however be reanalyzed in the context of the recent publication showing that a monoclonal gammopathy precedes MM in most patients.55 In addition, when examining CR rates and survival according to gene expression profiles defining monoclonal gammopathy of unknown significance (MGUS)–like versus non–MGUS-like MM, survival was identical despite a lower CR rate in the former group.56  This could mean that with intensive treatment, a MGUS-like status can be re-established in these patients with destruction of the more proliferative clone but with the persistance of a subclone of slowly dividing cells that are resistant to therapy. Similarly, in the IFM99 trials all patients received double ASCT.20  In International Staging System (ISS) stages 2 and 3, patients achieving at least VGPR had significantly longer PFS and OS than patients achieving only PR, whereas in patients with ISS stage 1, there was no significant impact of CR or VGPR achievement. These results suggest that CR or VGPR achievement may not be critical for long OS in patients with indolent or nonaggressive forms of MM. On the contrary, patients with t(4;14) or with del(17p) have a poor prognosis after ASCT57-60  even with tandem ASCT.61  These patients may actually achieve CR but relapses are usually very rapid.60  Therefore the benefit of CR has been questioned in this subgroup of aggressive MM. Other aggressive forms of MM can be defined by a rapid decrease of the initial tumor burden, suggesting a high proliferative activity.61  However, both the Arkansas and the IFM groups have shown that CR (or CR plus VGPR) achievement is useful in poor-risk MM.20,62  In the IFM99 trials, median PFS and OS were significantly better in patients with t(4;14) and/or del(17p) achieving at least VGPR (respectively, 2.1 years and 4.8 years) than in patients with only PR (respectively, 1.2 years and 2.1 years.20  Analysis of the intensive programs at Arkansas University suggested that stringently defined CR was critical for EFS and OS only in a small subgroup of patients with poor prognosis, as defined by gene expression profiling.63,64  These findings could mean that in more aggressive MMs, which are usually characterized by a more proliferative clone, elimination of this clone is necessary to obtain prolonged response.

Is CR achievement the major objective of treatment in MM?

One frequently asked question is whether it is necessary to continue treatment once CR is achieved, or, in other words, what is the impact of consolidation of maintenance treatments? The first aspect of this question is the role of HDT as consolidation treatment in patients who obtained CR with induction therapy. In the literature there are conflicting reports. In some studies, there was no significant survival benefit for patients achieving CR before ASCT compared with patients achieving CR only after ASCT20,65,66  as if the potential benefit of initial therapy was overcome by the power of HDT. In other studies, the outcome was better for patients achieving CR before ASCT.24,27  This discrepancy could be explained partly by the low CR rate obtained with conventional chemotherapy induction regimens. With novel agents, the CR/VGPR rate has increased dramatically and the impact of CR achievement before ASCT, if any, will be easier to demonstrate.

The objective of consolidation/maintenance could be to improve the quality of CR by further decreasing the number of residual tumor cells. Before the introduction of novel agents, CR was obtained mostly with HDT and it was probably difficult to further improve the level of CR because the number of active drugs was limited. The only way was to repeat HDT. However, the impact of the second ASCT has been a matter of debate. Whereas the Arkansas group stated that performing 2 ASCTs in a timely fashion was an important prognostic factor,21,67  subanalysis of the IFM and the Italian randomized trials evaluating double ASCT showed that in patients achieving CR or VGPR after the first ASCT, there was no OS benefit from the second.30,31 

The role of post-ASCT maintenance is not yet clarified. Two randomized studies have shown that post-ASCT treatment with thalidomide increases the CR plus VGPR rate, the PFS, and the OS,68,69  but in one of them the survival benefit was observed only in patients who were not at least in VGPR after ASCT.68  This could mean that the most important role of this type of maintenance is not to control disease by reducing minimal residual tumor but more simply to obtain more CR.

However, more recently, a larger use of novel agents in the post-ASCT phase of treatment suggests that it is possible not only to further increase the proportion of CR patients70  but also to further decrease the tumor cell burden in patients who already have obtained CR or VGPR. For instance, the Italian group has shown that in patients achieving at least VGPR after ASCT, it is possible to improve the level of response and obtain molecular remission using consolidation with thalidomde-bortezomib-dexamethasone.71  Therefore, in the era of novel therapies, achieving CR should not be the only objective, because it might be possible to prolong CR by improving the depth of response using these agents.

Which level of response is necessary?

The current definitions of CR are based on serologic and cytologic results. The most convenient level is VGPR that is simply defined by 90% reduction of the M-component in the serum (or less than 100 mg in the 24-hour urines). This level is currently frequently used because it has been repeatedly associated with a better PFS and OS in the ASCT setting15,20,30  and because it may apply to more patients than CR even in the era of novel agents.20  With HDT, CR was achieved in less than half of the patients, not more than 25% to 30% of cases with single ASCT and 30% to 45% with double ASCT, whereas the addition of CR plus VGPR concerned 50% to 55% of cases.10  The introduction of novel therapies increases the CR rates. In frontline therapy, combinations of MP with thalidomide, bortezomib, or lenalidomide yielded CR rates of 13% to 33% but CR/VGPR was achieved in 41% to 48% of patients.45-47,72  With prolonged treatment with the combination of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone, CR was achieved in 39% of cases, and 74% of patients had at least a 90% decrease of the M-component.73  The same is true in the context of ASCT plus novel agents. Induction treatments with thalidomide or bortezomib plus dexamethasone yield 6% to 19% CR and 19% to 46% CR/VGPR before ASCT.74-76  With the addition of a third agent, post-ASCT CR rates may reach 15% to 40%, whereas CR/VGPR rates are 50% to 75%.77-80  However, it is clear that compared with VGPR, the CR level is associated with a better outcome.25,81  Currently, CR defined by the absence of M-component on immunofixation and a normal bone marrow negative is the most widely accepted level. Serum free-light chain assay, which has been introduced more recently, may help to assess response in patients with oligo or nonsecretory MM.82  The IMWG has introduced the concept of stringent CR defined by a normal bone marrow by immunocytochemistry or immunofluorescence plus a normal serum free-light chain kappa-lambda ratio,19  but this has not yet been evaluated in large multicentric studies.

An important aspect is that measurement of the M-component or of the serum-free light chains only reflects the product of the secreting clone and probably not all malignant cells are secretory.

Other methods may better evaluate the tumor cell compartment. Suppression of karyotype abnormalities as evaluated by cytogenetic monitoring may predict superior outcome,83  as in acute leukemias. However, interest in this technique is doubtful because standard karyotype is informative in only 30% of patients in MM.

Molecular remissions are associated with long-term remissions and possibly with cure.84,85  This level has been achieved almost exclusively in the context of allogeneic stem cell transplantation in a very small subset of patients. However, in the near future, molecular remissions might be achieved in more patients with the combination of HDT and novel agents.71  This procedure is cumbersome, expensive, and currently available only in a limited number of specialized centers.

Compared with molecular remission, assessment of immunophenotypic CR by multiparameter flow cytometry is slightly less specific and sensitive but is applicable in more patients and less time-consuming.86  In the experience of investigators from Spain, in the context of HDT, achievement of immunophenotypic remission is the most relevant prognostic factor for PFS in multivariate analysis.87  Within the group of patients with negative immunofixation, the absence of residual disease by multiparameter flow cytometry was associated with a significantly better outcome.

Because more profound responses are likely to occur with new therapeutic strategies, it will be necessary to evaluate the clinical relevance of these levels of CR in future clinical trials.

Finally, the observation of persistant focal lesions on magnetic resonance imagery in CR patients also indicates that serologic methods are not sensitive enough to precisely evaluate the residual disease.88  An alternative explanation might be that these focal lesions, which may be the first site of recurrence, contain cells that are nonsecretory (possibly myeloma stem cells). Therefore, a more precise approach of the CR status might require an imaging technique (magnetic resonance imagery or positron emission tomography–computed tomography scan) in addition to serologic, cytologic, and possibly immunophenotypic analysis.

Conclusions

Like in other chronic hematologic malignancies (chronic lymphocytic leukemia or indolent lymphomas), CR achievement might not be the principal objective of treatment in elderly and frail patients or in patients with ISS stage 1 disease, especially when the treatment is potentially toxic

In all other patients, CR achievement is not just a cosmetic89  finding and is statistically correlated with a better outcome. It is a valid surrogate marker of the treatment efficacy and should be one objective of any therapeutic strategy, even in patients with poor-risk disease. However, the final objective is not only to achieve CR but also to maintain CR by further reducing the tumor cell mass including cells that do not secrete the M-component.90 

Future studies are needed to determine the optimal way to define CR in the era of novel therapies, which, in addition to cytotoxic agents, do increase the proportion and the duration of CR. One can imagine that in the near future it will be possible to obtain deeper CR and that the objective of treatment will be to obtain phenotypic responses as in chronic lymphocytic leukemia91  or even molecular remission as in chronic myeloid leukemia.92  Monitoring of the CR level would then help to define therapeutic strategies and to modify or prolong treatments when the required level is not (or no longer) obtained.

Authorship

Contribution: J.-L.H., M.A., and H.A.-L. wrote the paper.

Conflict-of-interest disclosure: The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Correspondence: Jean-Luc Harousseau, Centre René Gauducheau, Bd Jacques Monod 44850, St Herblain, France; e-mail jl-harousseau@nantes.fnclcc.fr.

References

References
1
Herold
 
M
Haas
 
A
Srock
 
S
, et al. 
Rituximab added to first-line mitoxantrone, chlorambucil and prednisolone chemotherapy followed by interferon maintenance prolongs survival in patients with advanced follicular lymphoma: an East German Study Group Hematology and Oncology Study.
J Clin Oncol
2007
, vol. 
25
 
15
(pg. 
1986
-
1992
)
2
Salles
 
G
Mounier
 
N
de Guibert
 
S
, et al. 
Rituximab combined with chemotherapy and interferon in follicular lymphoma patients:results of the GELA-GOELAMS FL 2000 study.
Blood
2008
, vol. 
112
 
13
(pg. 
4824
-
4831
)
3
Hallek
 
M
Fingerle-Rowson
 
G
Fink
 
AM
, et al. 
Immunochemotherapy with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab versus fludarabine and cyclophosphamide improves response rates and progression-free survival of previously untreated patients with advanced chronic lymphocytic leukemia [abstract].
Blood
2008
, vol. 
112
 
11
pg. 
125
 
4
Blade
 
J
Lopez-Guillermo
 
A
Roch
 
F
, et al. 
impact of response treatment on survival in multiple myeloma: results in a series of 243 patients.
Br J Haematol
1994
, vol. 
88
 
1
(pg. 
117
-
121
)
5
Oivanen
 
TM
Kellokumpu-Lehtinen
 
P
Koivisto
 
AM
, et al. 
Response level and survival after conventional chemotherapy for multiple myeloma.
Eur J Haematol
1999
, vol. 
62
 
2
(pg. 
109
-
116
)
6
Durie
 
BG
Jacobson
 
J
Barlogie
 
B
Crowley
 
J
Magnitude of response with myeloma frontline therapy does not predict outcome: importance of time to progression in Southwest Oncology Group chemotherapy trials.
J Clin Oncol
2004
, vol. 
22
 
10
(pg. 
1857
-
1863
)
7
Kyle
 
RA
Leong
 
T
Li
 
S
, et al. 
Complete Response in Multiple Myeloma. Clinical trial E9486, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study not involving stem cell transplantation.
Cancer
2006
, vol. 
106
 
9
(pg. 
1958
-
1966
)
8
Barlogie
 
B
Jagannath
 
S
Vesole
 
DH
, et al. 
Superiority of tandem autologous transplantation over standard therapy for previously untreated multiple myeloma.
Blood
1997
, vol. 
89
 
13
(pg. 
789
-
793
)
9
Attal
 
M
Harousseau
 
J-L
Armitage
 
JO
Antman
 
KH
High-dose therapy in multiple myeloma.
High-Dose Cancer Therapy
1999
Philadelphia, PA
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
(pg. 
743
-
754
)
10
Harousseau
 
J-L
Anderson
 
KC
Ghobrial
 
IM
High dose therapy in multiple myeloma.
Multiple Myeloma: Translational and Emergent Therapies
2008
New York, NY
Informa Healthcare
(pg. 
197
-
209
)
11
Niesvisky
 
R
Richardson
 
PG
Rajkumar
 
SV
, et al. 
The relationship between quality of response and clinical benefit for patients treated on the bortezomib arm of the international, randomized, phase 3 APEX trial in relapsed multiple myeloma.
Br J Haematol
2008
, vol. 
143
 
1
(pg. 
46
-
53
)
12
Harousseau
 
JL
Weber
 
D
Dimopoulos
 
M
, et al. 
Relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma treated with Lenalidomide/dexamethasone who achieve a complete or near complete response have longer overall survival and time to progression compared with patients achieving a partial response [abstract].
Blood
2007
, vol. 
110
 
11
pg. 
1052a
 
13
Gore
 
ME
Selby
 
PJ
Viner
 
C
, et al. 
Intensive treatment of multiple myeloma and criteria for complete remission.
Lancet
1989
, vol. 
8668
 
334
(pg. 
879
-
882
)
14
Dispenzieri
 
A
Kyle
 
R
Merlini
 
G
, et al. 
International Myeloma Working Group guidelines for serum-free light chain analysis in multiple myeloma and related disorders
Leukemia
2009
, vol. 
23
 
2
(pg. 
215
-
224
)
15
Bladé
 
J
Samson
 
D
Reece
 
D
, et al. 
Criteria for evaluating disease response and progression in patients treated with high-dose therapy and haematopoietic stem cell transplantation.
Br J Haematol
1998
, vol. 
102
 
5
(pg. 
1115
-
1112
)
16
Richardson
 
PG
Barlogie
 
B
Berenson
 
J
, et al. 
A Phase 2 Study of Bortezomib in relapsed, refractory myeloma.
N Engl J Med
2003
, vol. 
348
 
26
(pg. 
2609
-
2617
)
17
Zent
 
CS
Wilson
 
CS
Tricot
 
G
, et al. 
Oligoclonal protein bands and Ig isotype switching in multiple myeloma treated with high-dose therapy and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation
Blood
1998
, vol. 
91
 
9
(pg. 
3518
-
3523
)
18
Attal
 
M
Harousseau
 
J-L
Stoppa
 
A-M
, et al. 
A prospective randomized trial of autologous bone marrow transplantation and chemotherapy in multiple myeloma.
N Engl J Med
1996
, vol. 
335
 
2
(pg. 
91
-
97
)
19
Durie
 
BG
Harousseau
 
JL
San Miguel
 
JS
, et al. 
International uniform response criteria for multiple myeloma.
Leukemia
2006
, vol. 
20
 
9
(pg. 
1467
-
1473
)
20
Harousseau
 
JL
Avet-Loiseau
 
H
Attal
 
M
, et al. 
Achievement of at least very good partial response is a simple and robust prognostic factor in patients with multiple myeloma treated with high-dose therapy.
J Clin Oncol
2009
 
in press
21
Barlogie
 
B
Jagannath
 
S
Desikan
 
KR
, et al. 
Total therapy with tandem transplants for newly diagnosed patients.
Blood
1999
, vol. 
93
 
1
(pg. 
55
-
65
)
22
Rajkumar
 
SV
Fonseca
 
R
Dispenzieri
 
A
, et al. 
Effect of complete response on outcome following autologous stem cell transplantation.
Bone Marrow Transplant
2000
, vol. 
26
 
9
(pg. 
979
-
983
)
23
Davies
 
FE
Forsyth
 
PD
Rawstron
 
AC
, et al. 
The impact of attaining a minimal disease state after high-dose melphalan and autologous transplantation for multiple myeloma.
Br J Haematol
2001
, vol. 
112
 
3
(pg. 
814
-
881
)
24
Björkstrand
 
B
Goldstone
 
AH
Ljungman
 
P
, et al. 
Prognostic factors in autologous stem cell transplantation for multpiple myeloma: an EBMT registry.
Leuk Lymphoma
1994
, vol. 
15
 
3–4
(pg. 
265
-
272
)
25
Lahuerta
 
JJ
Martinez-Lopez
 
J
de la Serna
 
J
, et al. 
Remission status defined by immunofixation vs electrophoresis after autologous transplantation has a major impact on the outcome of multiple myeloma patients.
Br J Haematol
2000
, vol. 
109
 
2
(pg. 
438
-
446
)
26
Child
 
JA
Morgan
 
GJ
Davies
 
FE
, et al. 
High-dose chemotherapy with hematopoietic rescue for multiple myeloma.
N Engl J Med
2003
, vol. 
348
 
19
(pg. 
1875
-
1883
)
27
Alvares
 
CL
Davies
 
FE
Horton
 
C
, et al. 
Long-term outcomes of previously untreated myeloma patients: response to induction chemotherapy and high-dose melphalan incorporated within a risk stratification model can help to direct the use of novel treatments.
Br J Haematol
2005
, vol. 
129
 
5
(pg. 
607
-
614
)
28
O'Shea
 
D
Giles
 
C
Terpos
 
E
, et al. 
Predictive factors for survival in myeloma patients who undergo autologous stem cell transplantation: a single-centre experience in 211 patients.
Bone Marrow Transplant
2006
, vol. 
7
 
8
(pg. 
731
-
737
)
29
Lenhoff
 
S
Hjorth
 
M
Turesson
 
I
, et al. 
Intensive therapy for multiple myeloma in patients younger than 60 years. Long-term results focusing on the effect of the degree of response on survival and relapse pattern after transplantation.
Haematologica
2006
, vol. 
91
 
9
(pg. 
1228
-
1233
)
30
Attal
 
M
Harousseau
 
J-L
Facon
 
T
, et al. 
Single versus double autologous stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma.
N Engl J Med
2003
, vol. 
349
 
26
(pg. 
2495
-
2502
)
31
Cavo
 
M
Tosi
 
P
Zamagna
 
E
, et al. 
Prospective, randomized study of single compared with double autologous stem-cell transplantation for multiple myeloma: Bologna 96 clinical study.
J Clin Oncol
2007
, vol. 
25
 
17
(pg. 
2434
-
2441
)
32
Sonneveld
 
P
van der Holt
 
B
Segeren
 
CM
, et al. 
Intermediate-dose melphalan compared with myeloablative treatment in multiple myeloma: long-term follow-up of the Dutch Cooperative Group Hovon 24 trial.
Haematologica
2007
, vol. 
92
 
7
(pg. 
928
-
935
)
33
van de Velde
 
HJK
Xiangyang
 
L
Chen
 
G
, et al. 
Compete response correlates with long-term survival and progression-free survival in high-dose therapy in multiple myeloma.
Haematologica
2007
, vol. 
92
 
10
(pg. 
1399
-
1406
)
34
Wang
 
M
Delasalle
 
K
Thomas
 
S
, et al. 
Complete remission represents the major surrogate marker of long survival in multiple myeloma [abstract].
Blood
2006
, vol. 
108
 
11
pg. 
123a
 
35
Desikan
 
R
Barlogie
 
B
Sawyer
 
J
, et al. 
Results of high-dose therapy for 1000 patients with multiple myeloma: durable complete remissions and superior survival in the absence of chromosome 13 abnormalities.
Blood
2000
, vol. 
95
 
12
(pg. 
4008
-
4010
)
36
Fermand
 
JP
Ravaud
 
P
Chevret
 
S
, et al. 
High-dose therapy and autologous peripheral blood stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma:upfront or rescue treatment? results of a multicentric sequential randomized trial.
Blood
1998
, vol. 
92
 
9
(pg. 
3131
-
3136
)
37
Palumbo
 
A
Triolo
 
S
Argentino
 
C
, et al. 
Dose-intensive melphalan with stem cell support is superior to standard treatment in elderly myeloma patients.
Blood
1999
, vol. 
94
 
4
(pg. 
1248
-
1253
)
38
Fermand
 
JP
Katsahian
 
S
Divine
 
M
, et al. 
High-does therapy and autologous blood stem-cell transplantation compared with conventional treatment in myeloma patients aged 55 to 75 years: long-term results of a randomized control trial from the Group Myelome-Autogreffe.
J Clin Oncol
2005
, vol. 
23
 
36
(pg. 
9227
-
9233
)
39
Bladé
 
J
Rosinol
 
L
Sureda
 
A
, et al. 
High-dose intensification compared with continued standard chemotherapy in multiple myeloma patients responding to the initial chemotherapy: long-term results from a prospective randomized trial from the Spanish cooperative group PETHEMA.
Blood
2005
, vol. 
106
 
12
(pg. 
3755
-
3759
)
40
Barlogie
 
B
Kyle
 
RA
Anderson
 
KC
, et al. 
Standard chemotherapy compared ith high-dose chemoradiotherapy for multiple myeloma: final results of Phase III US Intergroup trial S9321.
J Clin Oncol
2006
, vol. 
24
 
6
(pg. 
929
-
936
)
41
Richardson
 
PG
Sonneveld
 
P
Schuster
 
MW
, et al. 
Bortezomib or high-dose dexamethasone for relapsed multiple myeloma.
N Engl J Med
2005
, vol. 
352
 
24
(pg. 
2487
-
2498
)
42
Weber
 
DM
Chen
 
C
Nievisky
 
R
, et al. 
Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone for relapsed multiple myeloma in North America.
N Engl J Med
2007
, vol. 
357
 
21
(pg. 
2133
-
2142
)
43
Dimopoulos
 
M
Spencer
 
A
Attal
 
M
, et al. 
Lenalidomide plus dexamethasone for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.
N Engl J Med
2007
, vol. 
357
 
21
(pg. 
2123
-
2130
)
44
Orlowski
 
RZ
Nagler
 
A
Sonneveld
 
P
, et al. 
randomized study of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin plus bortezomib compared with bortezomib alone in relapsed of refractory multiple myeloma: combination improves time to, progression.
J Clin Oncol
2007
, vol. 
25
 
25
(pg. 
3892
-
3901
)
45
Palumbo
 
A
Bringhen
 
S
Caravita
 
T
, et al. 
Oral melphalan and prednisone chemotherapy plus thalidomide compared with melphalan alone in elderly patients with MM: randomized controlled trial.
Lancet
2006
, vol. 
367
 
9513
(pg. 
825
-
831
)
46
Facon
 
T
Mary
 
JY
Hulin
 
C
, et al. 
Melphalan and prednisone plus thalidomide versus melphalan and prednisone. or reduced-intensity autologous stem cell transplantation in elderly patients with multiple myeloma (IFM 99-06):a randomized trial.
Lancet
2007
, vol. 
370
 
9594
(pg. 
1209
-
1218
)
47
San Miguel
 
JF
Schlag
 
R
Khuageva
 
NK
, et al. 
Bortezomib plus melphalan and prednisone for initial treatment of multiple myeloma.
N Engl J Med
2008
, vol. 
359
 
9
(pg. 
906
-
917
)
48
Harousseau
 
J-L
Palumbo
 
A
Richardson
 
P
, et al. 
Superior outcomes associated with complete response:análysis of the Phase III VISTA study of bortezomib plus melphalan-prednisone versus melphalan-prednisone [abstract].
Blood
2008
, vol. 
112
 
11
pg. 
959
 
49
Barlogie
 
B
Tricot
 
G
Anaissie
 
E
, et al. 
Thalidomide and hematopoietic–cell transplantation for multiple myeloma.
N Engl J Med
2006
, vol. 
354
 
10
(pg. 
1021
-
1030
)
50
Palumbo
 
A
Bringhen
 
S
Liberati
 
A
, et al. 
Oral melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide in elderly patients with multiple myeloma: updated results of a randomized, controlled trial.
Blood
2008
, vol. 
112
 
8
(pg. 
3107
-
3114
)
51
Barlogie
 
B
pineda-Roman
 
M
van Rhee
 
F
, et al. 
Thalidomide arm of Total Therapy 2 improves complete remission duration and survival in myeloma patients with metaphase cytogenetic abnormailities.
Blood
2008
, vol. 
112
 
8
(pg. 
3115
-
3121
)
52
Ludwig
 
H
Hajek
 
R
Tothova
 
E
, et al. 
Thalidomide-dexamethasone compared to melphalan-prednisone in elderly patients with multiple myeloma.
Blood
2009
, vol. 
113
 
15
(pg. 
3435
-
3442
)
53
Tilly
 
H
Castaigne
 
S
Bordessoule
 
D
, et al. 
Low-dose cytarabine verus intensive chemotherapy in the treatment of acute nonlymphocytic leucemia in the elderly.
J Clin Oncol
1990
, vol. 
8
 
2
(pg. 
272
-
279
)
54
Pineda-Roman
 
M
Bolejack
 
V
Arzoumanian
 
V
, et al. 
Complete response in myeloma extends survival without, but not with history of prior monoclonal gammopathy of undetremined significance or smouldering disease.
Br J Haematol
2007
, vol. 
136
 
3
(pg. 
393
-
399
)
55
Weiss
 
BM
Abadie
 
J
Verma
 
P
Howard
 
RS
Kuehl
 
WM
A monoclonal gammopathy precedes multiple myeloma in most cases.
Blood
2009
, vol. 
113
 
22
(pg. 
5418
-
5422
)
56
Zhan
 
F
Barlogie
 
B
Arzoumanian
 
, et al. 
Gene-expression signatura of benign monoclonal gammopathy evident in multiple myeloma is linked to good prognosis.
Blood
2007
, vol. 
109
 
4
(pg. 
1692
-
1700
)
57
Chang
 
H
Sloan
 
S
Li
 
D
, et al. 
The t(4;14) is associated with poor prognosis in myeloma patients undergoing autologous ítem cell trasnplant.
Br J Haematol
2004
, vol. 
125
 
1
(pg. 
64
-
68
)
58
Chang
 
H
Qi
 
C
Yi
 
QL
Reece
 
D
Stewart
 
AK
P53 gene deletion detected by fluorescent in situ hybridization is an adverse prognostic factor for patients with multiple myeloma following autologous ítem cell transplantation.
Blood
2005
, vol. 
105
 
1
(pg. 
358
-
360
)
59
Gertz
 
M
Lacy
 
MQ
Dispenzieri
 
A
, et al. 
Clinical implications of t(11;14(q13;32), t(4;14)(p16.3;q32), and –17p13 in myeloma patients treated with high-dose therapy.
Blood
2005
, vol. 
106
 
8
(pg. 
2837
-
2840
)
60
Cavo
 
M
Terragna
 
C
Renzulli
 
M
, et al. 
Poor outcome with front-line autologous transplantation in t(4;14) multiple myeloma: low complete remission rate and short duration of remission.
J Clin Oncol
2006
, vol. 
24
 
1
(pg. 
24
-
25
)
61
Avet-Loiseau
 
H
Attal
 
M
Moreau
 
P
, et al. 
Genetic abnormalities and survival in multiple myeloma: the experience of the Intergroupe Francophone du Myelome.
Blood
2007
, vol. 
109
 
8
(pg. 
3489
-
3495
)
62
van Rhee
 
F
Bolejack
 
V
Hollmig
 
K
, et al. 
High serum-free light chain levels and their rapid reduction in response to therapy define an aggressive multiple myeloma subtype with poor prognosis.
Blood
2007
, vol. 
110
 
3
(pg. 
827
-
832
)
63
Haessler
 
J
Shaughnessy
 
JD
Fenghuang
 
Z
, et al. 
Benefit of complete response in multiple myeloma limited to high-risk subgroup identified by gene expression profiling.
Clin Cancer Res
2007
, vol. 
13
 
23
(pg. 
7073
-
7079
)
64
Barlogie
 
B
van Rhee
 
F
Shaughnessy
 
JD
Anaissie
 
E
Crowley
 
J
Making progress in treating multiple myeloma with total therapies: issue of complete remission and more.
Leukemia
2008
, vol. 
22
 
8
(pg. 
1633
-
1636
)
65
Singhal
 
S
Powles
 
R
Sirohi
 
B
Treleaven
 
J
Kulkarni
 
S
Mehta
 
J
Response to induction chemotherapy is not essential to obtain survival benefit from high-dose melphalan and autotransplantation in myeloma.
Br J Haematol
2002
, vol. 
30
 
10
(pg. 
673
-
679
)
66
Dingli
 
D
Pacheco
 
JM
Nowakowski
 
GS
, et al. 
Relationship between depth of response and outcome in multiple myeloma
J Clin Oncol
2007
, vol. 
25
 
31
(pg. 
4933
-
4937
)
67
Pineda-Roman
 
M
Barlogie
 
B
Anaissie
 
E
, et al. 
High-dose Melphalan-based autotransplants for multiple myeloma.
Cancer
2008
, vol. 
112
 
8
(pg. 
1754
-
1764
)
68
Attal
 
M
Harousseau
 
JL
Leyvraz
 
S
, et al. 
Maintenance therapy with thalidomide improves survival in multiple myeloma patients.
Blood
2006
, vol. 
108
 
10
(pg. 
3289
-
3294
)
69
Spencer
 
A
Prince
 
HM
Roberts
 
AW
, et al. 
Consolidation therapy with low-dose thalidomide and prednisolone prolongs the survival of multiple myeloma patients undergoing a single autologous stem-cell transplantation procedure.
J Clin Oncol
2009
, vol. 
27
 
11
(pg. 
1788
-
1793
)
70
Pineda-Roman
 
M
Zangari
 
M
Haessler
 
J
, et al. 
Sustained complete emissions in multiple myeloma linked to bortezomib in total therapy 3: comparison with total therapy 2.
Br J Haematol
2008
, vol. 
140
 
6
(pg. 
625
-
634
)
71
Ladetto
 
M
Pagliano
 
G
Ferrero
 
S
, et al. 
Major shrinking of residual tumor cell burden and achievement of molecular remissions in myeloma patients undergoing post-transplant consolidation with bortezomib, thalidomide and dexamethasone: a qualitative and quantitative PCR study [abstract].
Blood
2008
, vol. 
112
 
11
pg. 
1261
 
72
Palumbo
 
A
Falco
 
P
Corradini
 
P
, et al. 
Melphalan, Prednisone, Lenalidomide treatment for newly diagnosed myeloma:a report from the GIMEMA-Italian Multiple Myeloma Network.
J Clin Oncol
2007
, vol. 
25
 
28
(pg. 
4459
-
4465
)
73
Niesvizky
 
R
Jayabalan
 
DS
Christos
 
PJ
, et al. 
BiRD (Biaxin/Revlimid/Dexamethasone) combination therapy results in high complete and overall response rates in treatment-naïve symptomatic multiple myeloma.
Blood
2008
, vol. 
111
 
3
(pg. 
1101
-
1109
)
74
Cavo
 
M
Zamagni
 
E
Tosi
 
P
, et al. 
Superiority of thalidomide and dexamethasone compared with vincristine-doxorubicine-dexamethasone as primary therapy in preparation for autologous transplantation for multiple myeloma.
Blood
2005
, vol. 
106
 
1
(pg. 
35
-
39
)
75
Macro
 
M
Divine
 
M
Uzumban
 
Y
, et al. 
Dexamethasone plus thalidomide compared to VAD as pretransplant treatment in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: a randomized trial [abstract].
Blood
2006
, vol. 
108
 
11
pg. 
22a
 
76
Harousseau
 
J-L
Mathiot
 
C
Attal
 
M
, et al. 
Bortezomib/Dexamethasone versus VAD as induction prior to autologous stem-cell transplantation in previously untreated multiple myeloma. Updated results from IFM 2005/0 trial [abstract].
J Clin Oncol
2008
, vol. 
26
 
15
pg. 
455s
 
77
Lokhorst
 
HM
Schmidt-Wolf
 
I
Sonneveld
 
P
, et al. 
Thalidomide in induction treatment increases the very good partial response rate before and after high-dose therapy in previously untreated multiple myeloma.
Haematologica
2008
, vol. 
93
 
1
(pg. 
124
-
127
)
78
Morgan
 
GJ
Davies
 
FE
Owen
 
RG
, et al. 
Thalidomide combinations improve response rates: results from the MRC IX study [abstract].
Blood
2007
, vol. 
110
 
11
pg. 
1051a
 
79
Cavo
 
M
Tacchetti
 
P
Patriarca
 
F
, et al. 
Superior complete response rate and prgression-free survival after autologous transplantation with upfront Velcade-Thalidomide-Dexamethasone compared with Thalidomide-Dexamethasone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma [abstract].
Blood
2008
, vol. 
112
 
11
pg. 
65
 
80
Sonneveld
 
P
van der Holt
 
B
Schmidt-Wolf
 
IGH
, et al. 
First analysis of Hovon 65/GMMG-HD4 randomized Phase III trial comparing bortezomib, adriamycine, dexamethasone (PAD) vs VAD as induction prior to high dose melphalan in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma [abstract].
Blood
2008
, vol. 
112
 
11
(pg. 
243
-
244
)
81
Lahuerta
 
JJ
Mateos
 
MV
Rosinol
 
L
, et al. 
Influence of pre- and post-transplantation 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
, vol. 
112
 
10
(pg. 
4017
-
4023
)
82
Drayson
 
M
Tang
 
LX
Drew
 
R
Mead
 
GP
Carr-Smith
 
H
Bradwell
 
AR
Serum free light chain measurements for identifying and monitoring patients with non secretoty myeloma.
Blood
2001
, vol. 
97
 
9
(pg. 
2900
-
2902
)
83
Arzoumanian
 
V
Hoering
 
A
Sawyer
 
J
, et al. 
Suppression of abnormal karyotypes predicts superior survival in multiple myeloma.
Leukemia
2008
, vol. 
22
 
4
(pg. 
850
-
855
)
84
Martinelli
 
G
Terragna
 
C
Zamagni
 
E
, et al. 
Molecular remission after allogeneic or autologous transplantation of hematopoietic stem cells for multiple myeloma.
J Clin Oncol
2000
, vol. 
18
 
11
(pg. 
2273
-
2281
)
85
Corradini
 
P
Cavo
 
M
Lokhorst
 
H
, et al. 
Molecular remission after myeloablative allogeneic stem cell transplantation predicts a better relapse-free survival in patients with multiple myeloma.
Blood
2003
, vol. 
102
 
5
(pg. 
1927
-
1929
)
86
Sarasquete
 
ME
Garcia-Sanz
 
R
Gonzalez
 
D
, et al. 
Minimal residual disease monitoring in multiple myeloma: a comparison between allele-specific oligonucleotide real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction and flow cytometry.
Haematologica
2005
, vol. 
90
 
10
(pg. 
1365
-
1372
)
87
Paiva
 
B
Vidriales
 
MB
Cervero
 
J
, et al. 
Multiparameter flow cytometry is the most relevant prognostic factor relevant prognostic factor for multiple myeloma patients who undergo autologous stem cell transplantation.
Blood
2008
, vol. 
112
 
10
(pg. 
4017
-
4023
)
88
Walker
 
R
Barlogie
 
B
Haessler
 
J
, et al. 
Magnetic resonance imaging in multiple myeloma: diagnostic and clinical implications.
J Clin Oncol
2007
, vol. 
25
 
9
(pg. 
1121
-
1128
)
89
Bergsagel
 
PL
A kinder, gentler way: control of the proliferative tumor compartment, not cosmetic complete response, should be the goal of myeloma therapy.
Leukemia
2008
, vol. 
22
 
4
(pg. 
673
-
675
)
90
Barlogie
 
B
Anaissie
 
E
Haessler
 
J
, et al. 
Complete remission sustained 3 years from treatment initiation is a powerful surrogate marker for extended survival in myeloma.
Cancer
2008
, vol. 
113
 
2
(pg. 
355
-
359
)
91
Boettcher
 
S
Fischer
 
k
Stilgenbauer
 
S
, et al. 
Quantitative MRD assessments predict progression free survival in CLL patients treated with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide with or without rituximab: a prospective analysis in 471 patients from the randomized GCLLSG CLL8 trial [abstract].
Blood
2008
, vol. 
112
 
11
(pg. 
125
-
126
)
92
Baccarani
 
M
Saglio
 
G
Goldman
 
J
, et al. 
Evolving concepts in the management of chronic myeloid leukaemia: recommendations from an expert panel on behalf of the European Leukemia Net.
Blood
2006
, vol. 
108
 
6
(pg. 
1814
-
1820
)