Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Aug 31;15(8):e0237155. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237155

The clinical significance of stringent complete response in multiple myeloma is surpassed by minimal residual disease measurements

Maria-Teresa Cedena 1,2, Estela Martin-Clavero 1,2, Sandy Wong 3, Nina Shah 3, Natasha Bahri 3, Rafael Alonso 1,2, Carmen Barcenas 4, Antonio Valeri 1,2, Johny Salazar Tabares 4, Jose Sanchez-Pina 1,2, Clara Cuellar 1,2, Thomas Martin 3, Jeffrey Wolf 3, Juan-Jose Lahuerta 1,2,#, Joaquin Martinez-Lopez 1,2,3,*,#
Editor: Nicola Amodio5
PMCID: PMC7458342  PMID: 32866200

Abstract

Background

Stringent complete response (sCR) is used as a deeper response category than complete response (CR) in multiple myeloma (MM) but may be of limited value in the era of minimal residual disease (MRD) testing.

Methods

Here, we used 4-colour multiparametric flow cytometry (MFC) or next-generation sequencing (NGS) of immunoglobulin genes to analyse and compare the prognostic impact of sCR and MRD monitoring. We included 193 treated patients in two institutions achieving CR, for which both bone marrow aspirates and biopsies were available.

Results

We found that neither the serum free light chain ratio, clonality by immunohistochemistry (IHC) nor plasma cell bone marrow infiltration identified CR patients at distinct risk. Patients with sCR had slightly longer progression-free survival. Nevertheless, persistent clonal bone marrow disease was detectable using MFC or NGS and was associated with significantly inferior outcomes compared with MRD-negative cases.

Conclusion

Our results confirm that sCR does not predict a different outcome and indicate that more sensitive techniques are able to identify patients with differing prognoses. We suggest that MRD categories should be implemented over sCR for the future classification of MM responses.

Introduction

The precise classification of the response to treatment in multiple myeloma (MM) is crucial for the evaluation of clinical efficacy and prognosis [1, 2], and improving the definition of response is becoming increasingly relevant. Four categories of deep response have been established by the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) [3] based on various criteria and methodologies, but in our opinion, some of these categories are redundant.

The IMWG introduced the stringent complete response (sCR) criteria in 2006 [4] by adding a criterion for the normalization of the kappa and lambda serum free light chain (sFLC) ratio plus the absence of clonal plasma cells in bone marrow (BM) by immunohistochemistry (IHC) or immunofluorescence with a sensitivity of 10−3 [5, 6]. The sCR criteria have remained with minor changes in subsequent reviews [3, 7]. However, the value of the sCR criteria over CR could be controversial.

Only one study reported the impact of achieving sCR after autologous stem cell transplantation in MM patients [8], while other authors did not find that the normalization of the κ/λ ratio provides more additional prognostic value [911].

In a previous work from our group, we showed that the sCR criteria only identified a small group of patients with dismal prognosis, namely, those with high residual burden by low-sensitivity MFC [12]. We also found that sFLC ratio normalization in patients in CR did not identify patients with differing outcomes [12, 13].

With the emergence of new and more effective treatments along with sensitive techniques to study minimal residual disease (MRD), the role of sCR is probably becoming less relevant. Additionally, the assessment of clonality by IHC requires the performance of a BM biopsy, which is more painful and expensive than aspiration.

Here, we analysed and compared the prognostic value of sCR and MRD monitoring by intermediate-sensitivity flow cytometry (first- and second-generation) or next-generation sequencing of the immunoglobulin genes in patients with conventional CR treated in two institutions.

Patients and methods

Patients and samples

The study group included patients with MM in CR treated at Hospital 12 Octubre, Madrid or the University of California, San Francisco between 2003 and 2018. The patients were treated according to usual clinical protocols, and bone marrow (BM) samples were obtained to assess the response of therapy following the usual practice in each centre. This retrospective observational study was approved by the ethics committees of Hospital 12 Octubre and University of California San Francisco (UCSF), and all patients provided written informed consent for the use of the samples. All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of institutional and/or national research committees and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Methods

BM clonality was defined by IHC when the κ/λ ratio was >4:1 or <1:2 for κ and λ patients, respectively. sFLC was measured by immune-nephelometry (FREELITE assay; Binding Site Ltd., Birmingham, UK), and sFLC κ/λ ratios were classified as normal (0.26–1.65) or abnormal (<0.26 if the patient was λ; >1.65 if the patient was κ) following IMWG guidelines [7]. Plasma cell infiltration in BM aspirates was also evaluated in May-Grünwald-Giemsa-stained smears by conventional cytomorphology, counting 500 nucleated cells.

BM biopsies were obtained from the iliac crest with an 11G trephine biopsy needle and were fixed in 5% formalin. The samples were decalcified and embedded in paraffin, and 2-μm sections were stained with haematoxylin and eosin. BM biopsy IHC was carried out on paraffin sections as previously described [14]. BM plasma cell percentages were calculated by counting 500 nucleated cells on BM smears by two different pathologists.

MRD by MFC was performed using conventional 4-colour MFC as previously described [15, 16]. In brief, erythrocyte-lysed whole-BM samples were immunophenotyped using the 4-colour antibody combination CD38-FITC/CD56-PE/CD19-PerCP-Cy5.5/CD45-APC. The data acquisition of 2 million cells was performed with FACSCalibur and FACSCanto II flow cytometers (Becton-Dickinson, San Jose, CA); specific software was used to analyse the flow cytometry data [17], and the expected sensitivity was 10−4–10−5.

MRD by NGS of immunoglobulin genes was performed by commercially available NGS (Adaptive Biotechnologies, Seattle, WA), as previously described [18]. Patients in whom a high frequency of myeloma clones (>5%) were not identified were excluded from the MRD analysis. MRD was assessed in patients with a high frequency of myeloma clones using the IGH-VDJH and IGK or IGH-VDJH, IGH-DJH, IGK and IGL assays. Once the absolute amount of total cancer-derived molecules present in a sample was determined, a final MRD measurement was calculated, providing the number of cancer-derived molecules per 1 million cell equivalents.

Statistical analysis

All data were stored in a REDCap database (Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TE) and in MS Excel files. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS version 22.0 (Statistical Package for Social Sciences Inc., Chicago, IL). Progression-free survival (PFS) curves were plotted by the Kaplan-Meier method, and the log-rank test was used to estimate the statistical significance of differences in survival rates. P-values <0.05 were considered significant. The χ2 and Fisher’s exact two-sided tests were used for comparisons between categorical variables, and the Wilcoxon rank sum test or t-test was used for continuous variables. Correlation and concordance analyses were performed with Pearson R and Kappa index tests.

Results

The study comprised 193 patients treated at Hospital 12 Octubre (n = 61) or the University of California, San Francisco (n = 132). Eighty percent of patients were transplant-eligible, and a similar number received some type of maintenance, mainly lenalidomide. The median follow-up was 27 months. All patients had CR. The primary clinical characteristics are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Main clinical characteristics of the included patients.

Characteristic n (193)
Male/female, % 57/43
Mean age, years (range) 58.8 (28–82)
Mean haemoglobin, mg/dL (SD) 10.6 (2.2)
Mean creatinine, mg/dL (SD) 1 (1.1)
LDH high, % 21
High-risk cytogenetics, % 19
International Staging System, (%)
I 36
II 29
III 35
Myeloma type
IgG 55
IgA 20
LC 20
Other 5
Treatment, (%)
VRD or VTD 48
KRD 3
RD 4
Keyboard 21
Others 24
Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation (Y/N), % 80/20
Maintenance (Y/N), % 82/18

†del(17p) and/or translocation t(4;14) and/or translocation t(14;16).

Abbreviations: SD: standard deviation; LC: light chain; VRD: bortezomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone; VTD: bortezomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone; KRD: carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone; RD: lenalidomide-dexamethasone; CyBorD: cyclophosphamide-bortezomib-dexamethasone.

A total of 161 BM samples from 130 patients were analysed with both IHC and MFC, whereas 98 BM samples were analysed with both IHC and NGS of immunoglobulin gen.

Comparison of immunohistochemistry with conventional cytomorphology

In a subset of 92 samples, we used three methods to identify patients with persistent MM disease: 9/92 samples (10%) were considered clonal by IHC, 11 samples (11%) had more than 5% plasma cells by conventional cytology, and 38/92 (41%) were considered positive by MFC. We found low correlations between plasma cell infiltration evaluated by cytological techniques and IHC or MFC (R = 0.27 and 0.56, respectively) and between that evaluated by IHC and MFC (R = 0.41).

Prognostic impact of stringent complete response, immunohistochemistry and serum free light chain

Patients not showing clonality (n = 162) by IHC and those showing clonality (n = 31) had similar PFS outcomes (106 vs 122 months, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: ND and 66–140, respectively, P = 0.5, Fig 1A), and patients with less than 5% of plasma cells by cytology had the same PFS as those with more than 5% (89 vs 114 months, 95% CI: 11–89 and 87–142 months, respectively, P = 0.6).

Fig 1.

Fig 1

Progression-free survival of patients based on (A) immunohistochemistry, (B) normal serum free light chain ratio, and (C) stringent complete response.

Patients with normalized sFLC ratios (n = 162) and patients with abnormal sFLC ratios (n = 30) had similar outcomes (PFS 38 months vs ND, 95% CI: NA and 38–41 months, respectively, P = 0.1, Fig 1B).

Next, we investigated whether patients with sCR (n = 64) and patients not achieving sCR (n = 125) had similar outcomes and found that both groups had similar outcomes (PFS 68 vs 69 months, 95% CI: 27–108 months and ND, respectively, P = 0.5, Fig 1C).

MRD assessment

Patients with negative MFC results had superior outcomes to patients failing to reach MRD negativity (PFS NA vs 53 months, 95% CI: NA and 32–77 months, respectively, P = 0.02). We then explored whether MFC identified patients with dismal outcomes among patients with sCR. A total of 108 patients with sCR were MRD-negative by MFC and had better outcomes than MRD-positive patients (n = 22) (PFS 58 months vs NA, 95% CI 35–71 months and ND, respectively, P = 0.04, Fig 2A).

Fig 2.

Fig 2

Progression-free survival of patients with stringent complete response classified by multiparametric flow cytometry (MFC) (A) and next-generation sequencing (NGS) results (B).

Finally, patients MRD-negative by NGS had superior outcomes to patients failing to reach MRD negativity (PFS NA vs 38 months, 95% CI: NA and 27–49 months, respectively, P = 0.0001). We explored whether NGS identified patients with dismal outcomes among patients with sCR. A total of 34 patients with sCR were MRD-negative by NGS and had better outcomes than MRD-positive patients (n = 64) (PFS 32 months vs. ND, 95% CI: 22–42 months and ND, respectively, P = 0.001, Fig 2B).

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first study that performed a head-to-head comparison of sCR and MRD to define patients with different outcomes. sCR has been hypothesized to represent a deep response; however, both sFLC and plasma cell clonality in BM have limitations in defining patients with dismal outcomes in an era of highly sensitive techniques, including MFC and molecular approaches.

Despite the limitations of our study (retrospective nature, relatively small sample of patients, low sensitivity of MFC), we found that neither BM clonality by IHC nor plasma cell counts could identify patients with better outcomes, which contrasts with other studies showing the clinical impact of both methodologies. Low sensitivity and lack of specificity could explain this difference, but the efficacy of new maintenance treatments could also influence these results; approximately 80% of patients were treated with maintenance therapy. It is well recognized that BM biopsy has more adverse events and is more painful than BM aspiration, so avoiding BM biopsy in the response evaluation of MM is of value to MM patients.

The sFLC test to identify the monoclonal or polyclonal nature of the immunoglobulin light chains and an altered κ/λ ratio by oligoclonal bands [19] has emerged in the context of immune regeneration [20], and we report a lack of clinical relevance for κ/λ ratios, similar to previous observations. The absence of significant differences in progression-free survival and overall survival between patients in the stringent and conventional CR groups differs from that reported by Kapoor et al. [10], and these findings reinforce the fact that sFLC does not contribute additional clinical information to immunofixation to define conventional CR in MM. This affirmation does not mean that sFLC is not an adequate method to follow MM patients; sFLC might be considered as an alternative method to define CR, but it is not superior. Future investigations using more sensitive methods, such as mass spectrophotometry, to identify monoclonal proteins in serum are needed [21].

MRD assessment is currently being considered a new therapeutic objective in MM. MFC is a sensitive technique that can capture these differences and identify patients with different prognoses [22, 23]. We previously showed that MRD monitoring by conventional low-sensitivity MFC, but not defined by IHC, has a similar outcome prediction to IHC but does not have any clinical consequences; however, intermediate-sensitivity MFC could improve clinical prediction [24]. These results underscore and confirm the fact that attaining deeper levels of remission translates into prolonged PFS. The MRD methodology described in this study, although using 4-colour MFC, has an intermediate sensitivity above 10−4 due to the acquisition of more events (approximately 2 million). This sensitivity is much higher than that achieved by IHC, which is approximately 1%. Further, the predictions of outcome could be improved in the future with next-generation flow cytometry [25]. In fact, a recently published study confirmed that MRD-negative patients, determined by using next-generation flow cytometry methodology, had an 82% reduction in the risk of progression or death [26].

Finally, NGS of immunoglobulin genes is a step forward in the definition of deep response in MM [24, 27, 28]. We showed that MRD by NGS could differentiate patients with different prognoses achieving sCR or CR with high accuracy.

In summary, our results confirm that response assessment according to the stringent CR criteria does not predict a different outcome for MM patients with CR. However, more sensitive techniques, including both MFC and NGS of immunoglobulin genes, might identify patients with different prognoses, even among patients with sCR. These results confirm our previous findings and strengthen our suggestion that the sCR category should be rethought for the future classification of MM response.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper.

Funding Statement

This study was supported by grants of the Instituto de Salud Carlos III FEDER founds (Ministry of Economy and Competitivity, Madrid, Spain) FIS PI15/01484 and CRIS foundation grants 14/001 to JML. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.van de Velde HJ, Liu X, Chen G, Cakana A, Deraedt W, Bayssas M. Complete response correlates with long-term survival and progression-free survival in high-dose therapy in multiple myeloma. Haematologica 2007. October; 92(10): 1399–1406. 10.3324/haematol.11534 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Harousseau JL, Attal M, Avet-Loiseau H. The role of complete response in multiple myeloma. Blood 2009. October 8; 114(15): 3139–3146. 10.1182/blood-2009-03-201053 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kumar S, Paiva B, Anderson KC, Durie B, Landgren O, Moreau P, et al. International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol 2016. August; 17(8): e328–e346. 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30206-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Durie BG, Harousseau JL, Miguel JS, Blade J, Barlogie B, Anderson K, et al. International uniform response criteria for multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2006. September; 20(9): 1467–1473. 10.1038/sj.leu.2404284 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Chee CE, Kumar S, Larson DR, Kyle RA, Dispenzieri A, Gertz MA, et al. The importance of bone marrow examination in determining complete response to therapy in patients with multiple myeloma. Blood 2009. September 24; 114(13): 2617–2618. 10.1182/blood-2009-01-198788 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Matsue K, Matsue Y, Kumata K, Usui Y, Suehara Y, Fukumoto K, et al. Quantification of bone marrow plasma cell infiltration in multiple myeloma: usefulness of bone marrow aspirate clot with CD138 immunohistochemistry. Hematol Oncol 2017. September; 35(3): 323–328. 10.1002/hon.2300 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Rajkumar SV, Harousseau JL, Durie B, Anderson KC, Dimopoulos M, Kyle R, et al. Consensus recommendations for the uniform reporting of clinical trials: report of the International Myeloma Workshop Consensus Panel 1. Blood 2011. May 5; 117(18): 4691–4695. 10.1182/blood-2010-10-299487 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Kapoor P, Gertz MA, Dispenzieri A, Lacy MQ, Dingli D, Hayman SR, et al. Importance of Achieving Sustained Stringent Complete Response (sCR) Following Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation in Multiple Myeloma. ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts 2012 November 16, 2012; 120(21): 1988–. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Hari P, Pasquini MC, Logan BR, Stadtmauer EA, Krishnan A, Howard A, et al. Immunoglobulin Free Light Chain (FLC) and Heavy Chain/Light Chain (HLC) Assays—Comparison with Electrophoretic Responses in Multiple Myeloma (MM). ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts 2011 November 18, 2011; 118(21): 2877–. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Giarin MM, Giaccone L, Sorasio R, Sfiligoi C, Amoroso B, Cavallo F, et al. Serum free light chain ratio, total kappa/lambda ratio, and immunofixation results are not prognostic factors after stem cell transplantation for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Clin Chem 2009. August; 55(8): 1510–1516. 10.1373/clinchem.2009.124370 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Ludwig H, Milosavljevic D, Zojer N, Faint JM, Bradwell AR, Hubl W, et al. Immunoglobulin heavy/light chain ratios improve paraprotein detection and monitoring, identify residual disease and correlate with survival in multiple myeloma patients. Leukemia 2012. January; 27(1): 213–219. 10.1038/leu.2012.197 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Martinez-Lopez J, Paiva B, Lopez-Anglada L, Mateos MV, Cedena T, Vidriales MB, et al. Critical analysis of the stringent complete response in multiple myeloma: contribution of sFLC and bone marrow clonality. Blood 2015. August 13; 126(7): 858–862. 10.1182/blood-2015-04-638742 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Lopez-Anglada L, Cueto-Felgueroso C, Rosinol L, Oriol A, Teruel AI, Lopez de la Guia A, et al. Prognostic utility of serum free light chain ratios and heavy-light chain ratios in multiple myeloma in three PETHEMA/GEM phase III clinical trials. PLoS One 2018; 13(9): e0203392 10.1371/journal.pone.0203392 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kapoor SK P., Dispenzieri A., Lacy M., Dingli D., Hayman S. R., Buadi F., et al. Survival outcomes of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) achieving stringent complete response (sCR) following upfront autologous stem cell transplantation (SCT). J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: suppl; abstr 8069. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.San Miguel JF, Almeida J, Mateo G, Blade J, Lopez-Berges C, Caballero D, et al. Immunophenotypic evaluation of the plasma cell compartment in multiple myeloma: a tool for comparing the efficacy of different treatment strategies and predicting outcome. Blood 2002. March 1; 99(5): 1853–1856. 10.1182/blood.v99.5.1853 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Mateo G, Castellanos M, Rasillo A, Gutierrez NC, Montalban MA, Martin ML, et al. Genetic abnormalities and patterns of antigenic expression in multiple myeloma. Clin Cancer Res 2005. May 15; 11(10): 3661–3667. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-1489 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Paiva B, van Dongen JJ, Orfao A. New criteria for response assessment: role of minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma. Blood 2015. May 14; 125(20): 3059–3068. 10.1182/blood-2014-11-568907 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Wood B, Wu D, Crossley B, Dai Y, Williamson D, Gawad C, et al. Measurable residual disease detection by high-throughput sequencing improves risk stratification for pediatric B-ALL. Blood 2018. March 22; 131(12): 1350–1359. 10.1182/blood-2017-09-806521 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.de Larrea CF, Cibeira MT, Elena M, Arostegui JI, Rosinol L, Rovira M, et al. Abnormal serum free light chain ratio in patients with multiple myeloma in complete remission has strong association with the presence of oligoclonal bands: implications for stringent complete remission definition. Blood 2009. December 3; 114(24): 4954–4956. 10.1182/blood-2009-06-224832 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Tovar N, de Larrea CF, Arostegui JI, Cibeira MT, Rosinol L, Rovira M, et al. Natural history and prognostic impact of oligoclonal humoral response in patients with multiple myeloma after autologous stem cell transplantation: long-term results from a single institution. Haematologica 2013. July; 98(7): 1142–1146. 10.3324/haematol.2013.084350 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Thoren KL. Mass spectrometry methods for detecting monoclonal immunoglobulins in multiple myeloma minimal residual disease. Semin Hematol 2018. January; 55(1): 41–43. 10.1053/j.seminhematol.2018.02.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Rawstron AC, Child JA, de Tute RM, Davies FE, Gregory WM, Bell SE, et al. Minimal Residual Disease Assessed by Multiparameter Flow Cytometry in Multiple Myeloma: Impact on Outcome in the Medical Research Council Myeloma IX Study. J Clin Oncol 2013. July 10; 31(20): 2540–2547. 10.1200/JCO.2012.46.2119 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Rawstron AC, Gregory WM, de Tute RM, Davies FE, Bell S, Drayson MT, et al. Minimal residual disease in myeloma by flow cytometry: independent prediction of survival benefit per log reduction. Blood 2015. February 2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Martinez-Lopez J, Lahuerta JJ, Pepin F, Gonzalez M, Barrio S, Ayala R, et al. Prognostic value of deep sequencing method for minimal residual disease detection in multiple myeloma. Blood 2014. May 15; 123(20): 3073–3079. 10.1182/blood-2014-01-550020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Paiva B, Puig N, Cedena MT, Rosiñol L, Cordón L, Vidriales MB, et al. Measurable Residual Disease by Next-Generation Flow Cytometry in Multiple Myeloma. J Clin Oncol. 2020. March 10; 38(8): 784–92. 10.1200/JCO.19.01231 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.van Rhee F, Bolejack V, Hollmig K, Pineda-Roman M, Anaissie E, Epstein J, 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. August 1; 110(3): 827–832. 10.1182/blood-2007-01-067728 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Martinez-Lopez J, Sanchez-Vega B, Barrio S, Cuenca I, Ruiz-Heredia Y, Alonso R, et al. Analytical and clinical validation of a novel in-house deep-sequencing method for minimal residual disease monitoring in a phase II trial for multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2017. June; 31(6): 1446–1449. 10.1038/leu.2017.58 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Perrot A, Lauwers-Cances V, Corre J, Robillard N, Hulin C, Chretien ML, et al. Minimal residual disease negativity using deep sequencing is a major prognostic factor in multiple myeloma. Blood 2018. December 6; 132(23): 2456–2464. 10.1182/blood-2018-06-858613 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Nicola Amodio

10 Jun 2020

PONE-D-20-12394

Clinical significance of stringent complete response in multiple myeloma is surpassed by minimal residual disease measurements

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Martinez-Lopez,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points blow,  raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 25 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nicola Amodio, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for your ethics statement: 'The retrospective observational study was approved by both hospital ethics committees, and all patients had given their written informed consent to samples.'

(a) Please amend your current ethics statement to include the full name of the ethics committee/institutional review board(s) that approved your specific study.

(b) Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

3. We noticed minor instances of text overlap with the following previous publication(s), which need to be addressed:

(1) https://ashpublications.org/blood/article/126/7/858/34457/Critical-analysis-of-the-stringent-complete

The text that needs to be addressed involves the Introduction section.

In your revision please ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

4. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.  

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

  • The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

  • A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

  • A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

J Martinez-Lopez belongs to the speaker bureau of Adaptive Biotechnologies. The rest

of the authors declare no competing financial interests.

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Authors speculated about the role of MRD over sCR in the definition of response and that sCR should be replaced by MRD in th IMWG criteria. They demontsrated that in a coohrt of MM patiemts ther is no difference in outcome in pts < sCR vs > scR. Howvere some revisions could be taken into account:

- Abstract: in the conclusion maybe it would be more appropriate to say "MRD should be implemented over sCR.." since MRD is not yet in clinical practice and sCR could be still helpful nowdays.

- Methods: usually patients caractheristics are in the results part, I suggest to put the table and the explanation in the first part of results.

- MFC: probably MFC 4 color has too low sensitivity. How many events did you acquire? I think at least 8 colour MFC should be done ot at least to discuss a little bit in the discussion part the role of more sensitive techniques

Reviewer #2: The authors should comment more on how MRD evaluation should complement sCR more than replacing it. Moreover, 4-colors flow used in the study is not appropriate considering its low sensitivity over 8 or 10-colors flow. Authors should comment on that as well. It would be important to add patients characteristics in the results section. English should be checked.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Aug 31;15(8):e0237155. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237155.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


25 Jun 2020

June 25, 2020

Dear Editor/s of PlosOne,

First, we are grateful to you for considering and revising our work.

Please find below our answer to your additional requirements.

Journal Requirements

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

The manuscript has been revised according to PLOS ONE’s style requirements. Particularly, affiliations and table 1 have been changed to suit your requirements.

2. Thank you for your ethics statement: 'The retrospective observational study was approved by both hospital ethics committees, and all patients had given their written informed consent to samples.'

(a) Please amend your current ethics statement to include the full name of the ethics committee/institutional review board(s) that approved your specific study.

(b) Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

In the Methods section, we have included “The retrospective observational study was approved by Hospital 12 Octubre and the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Ethics Committees”.

Further, the same statement is included in the submission form.

3. We noticed minor instances of text overlap with the following previous publication(s), which need to be addressed:

(1) https://ashpublications.org/blood/article/126/7/858/34457/Critical-analysis-of-the-stringent-complete.

The text that needs to be addressed involves the Introduction section.

In your revision please ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

The text in the Introduction section have been modified to solve the overlap with our previous work. This publication had been cited, (Reference 8).

4. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Following to your suggestions, the editing service AJE has reviewed language usage, spelling and grammar. Editing revision is included as “Supporting information”.

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

J Martinez-Lopez belongs to the speaker bureau of Adaptive Biotechnologies. The rest

of the authors declare no competing financial interests.

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests). If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

A modified version of Competing Interests has been included in cover letter

“Conflict of Interest: J Martinez-Lopez belongs to the speaker bureau of Adaptive Biotechnologies. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. The rest of the authors declare no competing financial interests.”

Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Authors speculated about the role of MRD over sCR in the definition of response and that sCR should be replaced by MRD in th IMWG criteria. They demontsrated that in a coohrt of MM patiemts ther is no difference in outcome in pts < sCR vs > scR. Howvere some revisions could be taken into account:

- Abstract: in the conclusion maybe it would be more appropriate to say "MRD should be implemented over sCR.." since MRD is not yet in clinical practice and sCR could be still helpful nowdays

We agree with your suggestion and have modified abstract conclusion as follows:

“We suggest that MRD categories should be implemented over sCR for the future classification of MM responses”

- Methods: usually patients characteristics are in the results part, I suggest to put the table and the explanation in the first part of results.

Description of patients’ characteristics and the table have been moved to Results part.

- MFC: probably MFC 4 color has too low sensitivity. How many events did you acquire? I think at least 8 colour MFC should be done ot at least to discuss a little bit in the discussion part the role of more sensitive techniques

In the discussion section, we added that although our MFC is 4-color, the acquisition of at least 2 million of events increases the sensitivity above 10-4, much higher that achieved with immunochemistry (about 1%). More sensitive techniques to evaluate MRD, as next-generation flow or NGS, improve the predictions of outcome. This has been confirmed in a recently published study using next generation cytometry to study MRD. An 82% of reduction in the risk of death or relapse is showed in MRD negative patients.

Reviewer #2: The authors should comment more on how MRD evaluation should complement sCR more than replacing it. Moreover, 4-colors flow used in the study is not appropriate considering its low sensitivity over 8 or 10-colors flow. Authors should comment on that as well. It would be important to add patients characteristics in the results section. English should be checked.

4-color MFC has achieved an intermediate sensitivity if enough number of events are acquired. We include this explanation in discussion, as well as the relevance of more sensitive techniques for MRD analysis in the clinical setting.

Patients characteristics have been moved to results section.

English has been checked by a native English spoken.

We hope we have answered appropriately your suggestions.

Yours faithfully,

Joaquín Martínez-López

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers-2.doc

Decision Letter 1

Nicola Amodio

22 Jul 2020

Clinical significance of stringent complete response in multiple myeloma is surpassed by minimal residual disease measurements

PONE-D-20-12394R1

Dear Dr. Martinez-Lopez,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Nicola Amodio, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed all the concerns by this reviewer. The paper can now be accepted for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Nicola Amodio

24 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-12394R1

The clinical significance of stringent complete response in multiple myeloma is surpassed by minimal residual disease measurements

Dear Dr. Martinez-Lopez:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Nicola Amodio

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers-2.doc

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES