MRD Tracking May Allow More ‘Individualized’ Management of Multiple Myeloma

Video

C. Ola Landgren, MD, PhD, illustrated how minimal residual disease tracking may allow greater treatment personalization in the future.

In an interview with CancerNetwork®, C. Ola Landgren, MD, PhD, touched on one of the most important issues that went undiscussed during a recent Around the Practice® program: the future of minimal residual disease (MRD) tracking in multiple myeloma.

Landgren is a professor of hematology, chief of the Myeloma Section, leader of the Experimental Therapeutics Program, and co-leader of the Tumor Biology Program at the University of Miami Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Program. He spoke about how treatment intensity could be determined by MRD status in the future, which may yield improvements in efficacy.

He also remarked on other potential developments in MRD tracking, including the development of blood-based tests. Through this, he predicted an increase in individualized disease management in the future.

Transcript:

We covered many of the important trends in the field today, [but] one thing we didn’t talk much about is the utility of MRD tracking. As these technologies become [more] available, even [in the form of] blood-based tests, they will help the field [move] forward. We will [likely] see more individualized [disease] management; patients will have the intensity of their therapy increased or decreased based on MRD status. [For example], for a patient who is MRD-negative after a certain number of cycles, you could [consider] decreasing [therapy] and [switching] to maintenance. Conversely, if there is evidence of rising markers, the patient would convert back to MRD positivity, [which] in the future may trigger [the use of] some newer therapies. Basically, it will be a molecular relapse. That’s how I envision the field going forward.

Recent Videos
Social workers and case managers may have access to institutional- or hospital-level grants that can reduce financial toxicity for patients undergoing cancer therapy.
Genetic backgrounds and ancestry may hold clues for better understanding pancreatic cancer, which may subsequently mitigate different disparities.
Factors like genetic mutations and smoking may represent red flags in pancreatic cancer detection, said Jose G. Trevino, II, MD, FACS.
Insurance and distance to a tertiary cancer center were 2 barriers to receiving high-quality breast cancer care, according to Rachel Greenup, MD, MPH.
Numerous clinical trials vindicating the addition of immunotherapy to first-line chemotherapy in SCLC have emerged over the last several years.
According to John Henson, MD, “What we need are better treatments to control the [brain] tumor once it’s detected.”
First-degree relatives of patients who passed away from pancreatic cancer should be genetically tested to identify their risk for the disease.
Surgery and radiation chemotherapy can affect immunotherapy’s ability to target tumor cells in the nervous system, according to John Henson, MD.
Thinking about how to sequence additional agents following targeted therapy may be a key consideration in the future of lung cancer care.
Endobronchial ultrasound, robotic bronchoscopy, or other expensive procedures may exacerbate financial toxicity for patients seeking lung cancer care.
Related Content