Table 2 Summary of MCL studies using MRD
From: Advances in the assessment of minimal residual disease in mantle cell lymphoma
Author | MRD method/Target | Population | Treatment type | MRD results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Cowan et al. [4] | qPCR and MFC/IgH rearrangement or t(11;14) translocation | Previous ASCT MCL pts in clinical CR | ASCT | MRD positivity is independently associated with poor outcomes after ASCT for MCL patients in CR |
Liu et al. [6] | qPCR/IgH rearrangement | Treatment-naïve MCL pts | R-CHOP +ASCT* | MRD negativity: 46% (74%*) |
Tam et al. [20] | MFC and ASO-qPCR/IgH rearrangement or t(11;14) translocation | R/R MCL pts | Ibrutinib and venetoclax | MRD negativity: -MFC 67% -ASO-qPCR 38% |
Klener et al. [21] | qPCR/IgH rearrangement | Transplant-ineligible MCL pts who received R-CHOP/R-cytarabine | R-CHOP/R-cytarabine + rituximab maintenance | MRD (positive vs negative) after 3 or 6 cycles of induction therapy not correlated with PFS |
Hermine et al. [22] | ASO-qPCR/not specified | Treatment-naïve MCL pts | R-CHOP + ASCT* (control) vs R-CHOP/R-DHAP + ASCT* (cytarabine) | MRD negativity: -PB: 47% in control and 79% in cytarabine (68%* vs 85%*) -BM: 26% in control and 61% in cytarbine (59%* vs 68%*) |
Kolstad et al. [23] | Nested PCR/IgH rearrangement | Treatment-naïve MCL pts | R-HDS +ASCT* | MRD negativity: 56% (86%*) |
Albertsson-Lindblad et al. [24] | Nested PCR/IgH rearrangement | Treatment-naïve MCL pts | Lenalidomide  + bendamustine + rituximab | MRD negativity: -After 6 cycles 36% -Therapy completion: 64% |
Kolstad et al. [25] | Combined nested and qPCR/IgH rearrangement | ASCT and PCR marker available MCL pts | ASCT Possible rituximab maintenance | 58 pts experienced MRD relapse and got rituximab maintenance. This converted pts to MRD-(87%) but many became positive again later (69%) |
Starza et al. [26] | Nested and qPCR/IgH rearrangements | From 4 labs of the FIL MRD Network: Both MCL and FL pts | N/A | 156/187 samples concordantly classified as MRD positive or negative by both methods; 31 samples were borderline |
Szostakowska et al. [27] | qPCR/t(11;14), IgH rearrangement, SOX11 | MCL pts at diagnosis and treatment | Various | At diagnosis: high SOX11 had shorter PFS vs low SOX11 (p = 0.04) |
Drandi et al. [28] | qPCR, MFC, ddPCR/IgH rearrangement | MCL MRD samples from 4 prospective trials of the European MCL Network | N/A | All 3 methods gave comparable results in MRD samples with 0.01% positivity. ddPCR was preferable to qPCR on BQR samples. |
Armand et al. [29] | ClonoSeq/IgH rearrangement | Treatment-naïve MCL pts | Rituximab + bendamustine / Rituximab + cytarabine | MRD negativity: 93% |
Ruan et al. [30] | ClonoSeq/IgH rearrangement | Treatment-naïve MCL pts | Lenalidomide + rituximab | MRD negativity: 8 out of 10 subjects |
Ladetto et al. [31] | qPCR and NGS/IgH rearrangement | ALL, MCL, and MM pts | N/A | NGS had same level of sensitivity as ASO-qPCR |
Smith et al. [32] | ClonoSeq and MFC/IgH rearrangement | Treatment-naïve MCL pts | Bendamustine-rituximab + rituximab ± lenalidomide | MRD negativity: -NGS: 91% PB and 90% BM -MFC:95% PB |
Callanan et al. [33] | qPCR/IgH rearrangement | MCL pts < 66 years of age | R-DHAP +ASCT* + rituximab maintenance | MRD negativity: -80% ➔ 95%* PB -66% ➔ 82%* BM |