Liquid biopsies for multiple myeloma in a time of precision medicine


Multiple myeloma (MM) is a challenging, progressive, and highly heterogeneous hematological malignancy. MM is characterized by multifocal proliferation of neoplastic plasma cells in the bone marrow (BM) and sometimes in extramedullary organs. Despite the availability of novel drugs and the longer median overall survival, some patients survive more than 10 years while others die rapidly. This heterogeneity is mainly driven by biological characteristics of MM cells, including genetic abnormalities. Disease progressions are mainly due to the inability of drugs to overcome refractory disease and inevitable drug-resistant relapse. In clinical practice, a bone marrow biopsy, mostly performed in one site, is still used to access the genetics of MM. However, BM biopsy use is limited by its invasive nature and by often not accurately reflecting the mutational profile of MM. Recent insights into the genetic landscape of MM provide a valuable opportunity to implement precision medicine approaches aiming to enable better patient profiling and selection of targeted therapies. In this review, we explore the use of the emerging field of liquid biopsies in myeloma patients considering current unmet medical needs, such as assessing the dynamic mutational landscape of myeloma, early predictors of treatment response, and a less invasive response monitoring.


Multiple myeloma (MM) is a plasma-cell malignancy characterized by bone lesions that is virtually always preceded by a monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) [1, 2]. The diagnosis of multiple myeloma is based on the presence of clinical, biochemical, histopathological, and radiological markers of disease. Biological characteristics of MM as well as patient- and drug-dependent factors, such as health status of the patient and treatment toxicities, dramatically influence survival [3, 4].

To address MM clinical heterogeneity, scoring systems have been developed in order to estimate individual prognosis. The degree of anemia, renal failure, and osteolysis were the first disease-related prognostic biomarkers, included in the Salmon & Durie (SD) staging system. Subsequently, serum albumin and β2-microglobulin levels were incorporated in the International Staging System (ISS), reflecting patient tumor burden, turnover rate, presence of renal impairment, and nutritional and performance status [5]. The prognostic performance of the ISS score was updated by adding high-risk cytogenetics [t(4;14), t(14;16), and del17p determined by interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization] and elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase [6]. More recent, deletions and amplification of chromosome 1 were added as conferring worse prognosis [7,8,9]. Currently, R-ISS is used primarily for risk stratification of patients with clinical implications with regard to selection of therapy but not in a generalized way.

To determine osteolysis and bone marrow involvement, imaging techniques are currently used. The European Myeloma Network and the European Society for Medical Oncology guidelines have recommended whole-body low-dose computer tomography (WBLDCT) as the imaging modality of choice for the assessment of MM-related lytic bone lesions. Magnetic resonance imaging is the gold-standard imaging modality for detection of bone marrow involvement, whereas positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) provides valuable prognostic data and is the preferred technique to assess response to therapy [10].

In clinical practice, bone marrow (BM) biopsy, mostly performed in one site, is used to access the genetic profile of the disease in MM patients. However, tissue biopsies fail to capture the intratumoral and inter-metastatic genetic heterogeneity, which decrease the accuracy of tests based on them [11]. MM is probably not a single entity and comprises a number of molecular subgroups characterized by a compilation of genomic alterations [12, 13]. Therefore, considering the MM clonal heterogeneity, BM biopsies probably do not reflect the true mutational profile in MM due to sampling bias. Also, BM biopsy’s invasive nature hinders serial clonal monitoring. Accurately measuring tumor burden is also crucial for prognostication. The most recent consensus statement from the IMWG regarding BM PC estimation requires either BM aspiration and/or biopsy However, PC counts on BM aspirates by conventional morphologic or immunohistochemical analysis may vary significantly due to dilution with peripheral blood and the patchy pattern of PCs infiltration. The development of new markers and approaches to more accurately and quickly assess tumor burden in MM patients would result in better outcomes.

The emergence of several new drugs over the past decades has dramatically improved patient outcomes in MM, extending the median survival by 4 years [4, 14]. Complete response (CR) rates have increased in parallel, establishing the need to develop more sensitive methods to better define depth of response as well as to monitor minimal residual disease (MRD) over time. Measurement of MRD in bone marrow by both next-generation sequencing (NGS) of variable diversity joining V(D)J rearrangements or next-generation flow cytometry (NGF) is highly predictive of survival in MM [15, 16] and may be used as a biomarker to adapt treatment strategies [17, 18]. However, serial assessments of MRD involve repeated sampling, which imposes the trauma of repeated BM aspirations. Furthermore, false negative MRD values may be obtained due to BM dilution with blood and sampling bias related with the patchy distribution of clonal plasma cells. A way of capturing tumor heterogeneity and potentially decide upon treatment over the course of time in a minimal invasive method in MM patients may be the use of liquid biopsies.

Liquid biopsies include the sampling and testing of biological fluids, typically blood, for a subset of circulating tumor components. The tumor components that can be tested include, among others, circulating tumor cells (CTC), tumor nucleic acids (such as circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and microRNA), and extracellular vesicles (EV). This “tumor circulome” can be used as a source of biomarkers for cancer diagnosis, screening, and prognosis [19]. The FDA already approved liquid biopsies for several cancers. In 2016, liquid biopsies were approved for lung cancer prognostication and for colorectal cancer based on ctDNA content [20, 21]. In MM, liquid biopsies are currently being evaluated in clinical studies such as the Liquid Biopsy Evaluation and Repository Development at Princess Margaret study (NCT03702309), The MMRF Cure Cloud Multiple Myeloma Research Initiative (NCT03657251), and the Study to Assess for Measurable Residual Disease (MRD) in multiple myeloma patients (NCT04108624).

Using new biomarkers to improve prognostic models in MM will certainly lead to the development of risk-adaptive therapeutic strategies improving the outcome of this disease and paving the way towards precision therapy.

Precision medicine in multiple myeloma

In MM, genome studies have led to a better understanding of the disease, including its genetic heterogeneity, evolution patterns over time, and identification of potential molecular drivers [22]. This complex molecular biology of MM has been described in several studies [23,24,25,26,27,28,29] and includes the observation of dynamic intra-patient sub-clonal heterogeneity [23, 25, 27, 30,31,32,33,34] and appearance of distinct sub-clones along longitudinal sampling [30, 32, 33]. Nevertheless, some genes are recurrently mutated in MM. Mutations affecting the RAS/MAPK pathway, such as KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF, were found to be the most frequently observed pathway mutations in MM detected in approximately 40% of patients [12]. Interestingly, 4–9% of MM patients harbor BRAF mutation at diagnosis, with the BRAF V600E mutation being the most common, with even higher frequency at relapse (up to 18%) [23, 24]. Although preclinical studies have shown the cytotoxic effect of BRAF inhibitors in MM cell lines [35], the evidence on using precision medicine approaches to BRAF mutational status and the efficacy of BRAF inhibitors is scarce [36,37,38]. Another example of potential use of precision medicine in MM is targeting the Bcl-2 apoptotic pathway. MM cell lines and patient samples, particularly those with t(11:14), have been shown to be particularly sensitive to Bcl-2 inhibitors, making Bcl-2 a potential target in this subtype of myeloma. Although the presence of the t (11:14) is used to be considered a standard risk factor, it is increasingly thought of as an intermediate risk factor in the era of novel agents, conferring worse outcome compared with standard-risk myeloma. Venetoclax is an oral compound designed to specifically inhibit the Bcl-2 protein in cancer cells. The sensitivity to the drug has been correlated to the ratio of Bcl-2 to Mcl-1 and Bcl-XL, with high Mcl-1 levels conferring resistance to this drug [39]. In the MM clinical setting, venetoclax has been shown to be well tolerated and effective in different phase I/II trials [40,41,42,43]. In order to better determine efficacy, a phase III trial comparing venetoclax in combination with standard treatment bortezomib-dexamethasone (BELLINI trial—M14-031; NCT02755597) is ongoing. However, in March 2019, the trial was interrupted due to safety concerns related to the higher rate of patient deaths with venetoclax combined with bortezomib (Velcade) and dexamethasone (Vd) (Ven + Bd) compared to placebo plus Vd in patients with relapsed/refractory myeloma. However, patients with t [11, 14] had consistent clinical benefit when treated with Ven + Bd, and a biomarker-driven approach with venetoclax seems appropriate in MM.

The new insight into the genetic landscape of MM provides a valuable opportunity for the implementation of precision medicine approaches, enabling patient profiling and selection of potential targeted therapies. However, there are still many challenges for precision medicine in MM, primarily because there is no unique driver mutation in MM and therefore the design of a selective targeted therapy is unlikely to benefit all patients. On the other hand, assessing the disease complexity at diagnosis and over time using liquid biopsies may provide a less invasive method for dynamic disease monitoring and therapeutic guidance. There would be several advantages to this approach guiding therapy, accelerating therapeutic switch to more affective alternatives, avoiding unnecessary side effects of ineffective treatments, and optimizing dose adjustments.

Here, the potential clinical applications of liquid biopsies are discussed, including CTC, ctDNA, microRNA (miRNA), and extracellular vesicles in MM.

Circulating tumor cells

In MM, CTCs are released from the primary tumor into the bloodstream [44], homing again to the BM at different locations in a metastatic dissemination process [45]. Migration of CTCs seems to be an early event in carcinogenesis [46] and since they were first described in 1869 by Ashworth, several studies have provided evidence of their presence in cancer patients [47, 48]. In recent years, they have gained increasing importance because they are minimally invasive indicators that can reveal critical information about the tumor. Indeed, CTCs may have numerous clinical applications, namely in detection, characterization, treatment guidance, and follow-up of cancer patients [49].

Several novel techniques to detect CTCs have emerged, either through nucleic acid-based or cytometric methods [50,51,52,53]. The first approach is highly sensitive and relies on the detection of specific DNA or RNA sequences expressed by tumor cells. However, cytometric assays have been proved to be easier to implement and have been privileged to identify and characterize CTCs according to their immune profile, size, and expression of specific markers [47]. Currently, CellSearch is the only FDA-approved technology for extraction and enumeration of CTCs of epithelial origin in the whole blood in specific cohorts of patients with solid cancers, namely breast, prostate, and colorectal carcinomas [54,55,56,57]. Despite the low number of cells and morphologic heterogeneity, this system is able to provide an accurate, sensitive, and reproducible way to count CTCs [58]. Still, this is not straightforward for all types of cancer and further development is needed to expand this approach to other neoplasias, such as MM.

Several research groups have tried to improve the tools to detect and characterize CTCs in MM. Foulk and colleagues were able to develop a kit for enumeration and characterization of CTCs by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and next-generation sequencing (NGS), showing more CTCs in all stages of MM compared to healthy donors. They showed that the number of CTCs in newly diagnosed myeloma patients correlates with other disease characteristics, such as the percentage of PCs in the BM, serum M protein, and International Staging System (ISS) [59]. In another study, Zhang and his team developed a linear and accurate cell-based immunofluorescence assay to distinguish MM CTCs from normal leukocytes based on specific morphological parameters and expression levels of CD138 and CD45 [60].

In a study analyzing the transcriptional profile of CTCs in MM, the gene expression profile of those cells was found to be identical to BM clonal PCs. However, CTCs were shown to have a higher expression of genes involved in key functions, such as inflammatory response, hypoxia, cell cycle, and migration, some of which associated with significantly inferior progression free survival and related to more aggressive disease [61]. Another study reported similar findings at a single-cell level, showing that in half of the patients, the proportion of mutated CTCs was significantly higher than in single cells from BM samples [62]. This suggests that CTCs may provide relevant information regarding sub-clonal assessment in MM, beyond what BM findings show.

Several research groups have been successful in developing new methods to detect CTCs, correlating their numbers and characteristics with an unfavorable prognosis [35, 63, 64]. The number of CTCs was found to be a predictor of survival in patients with both newly diagnosed [65] and relapsed disease [66]. Interestedly, high levels of CTCs in smoldering MM (SMM) were associated with a high risk of progression to overt MM in the first 2–3 years after diagnosis [67]. Recently, using next-generation flow (NGF) method developed by EuroFlow, Sanoja-Flores et al. showed that CTCs in PB at diagnosis are associated with poorer outcome of both MGUS and MM patients [15].

Cell-free circulating tumor DNA

Noninvasive assessment of tumor DNA is possible with cell-free circulating tumor DNA as well as from circulating tumor cells. In contrast to the circulating intact tumor cells in blood, ctDNA consists of small fragments of nucleic acids extracted from the plasma or serum. The cancer-derived fragments may be identified if they contain tumor-specific mutations or other genetic aberrations. Both quantitative and qualitative information can be obtained from ctDNA analysis. Due to the short half-life of DNA (approx. 2,5 h), ctDNA quantification provides a real-time snapshot of tumor bulk. Qualitative information stems from the description of genetic alterations found in ctDNA, which may be assessed overtime to show clonal evolution in MM. [68]

Deep sequencing of ctDNA from MM patients is a technique with a high sensitivity and has recently been demonstrated to recapitulate mutational profiles of matched BM aspirates [69]. Analysis of plasma-derived ctDNA as an adjunct to BM biopsy, for mutational characterization and tracking disease progression, is currently possible using droplet digital PCR [70]. Kis et al. reported that sequencing of ctDNA enables the analysis of sub-clonal hierarchies, reflecting tumor profiling with high levels of concordance with matched BM samples [71]. However, in some cases, the mutations identified were found only in plasma, which is consistent with the spatial heterogeneity of MM previously demonstrated by multi-region DNA sequencing of BM plasma cells [72,73,74]. In that sense, incorporating plasma ctDNA evaluation aimed at identifying frequent mutations found in MM may represent a significant advance in attempts to personalize MM treatment strategies. Apparently, the assessment of ctDNA at diagnosis allows the identification of clonotypes, confirming the ability of ctDNA to provide an alternative noninvasive test when the disease is active and guide the study of intraclonal heterogeneity and possibly drug choice.

Because of easy accessibility, ctDNA sampling is suitable for repeated analyses and, as it correlates with disease progression, it could serve as a prognostic marker as well. This was shown for acute leukemia and for both Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphomas [73, 74] but not yet for MM. Historically, in 1977, Leon et al. described significantly elevated levels of ctDNA in PB of patients with various solid malignancies (lung, kidney, prostate, and ovarian cancers) in comparison with healthy donors (HD). The average concentration of ctDNA was about 13 ng/mL for HD, while in cancer patients, ctDNA reached levels up to 5000 ng/mL, in patients with advanced metastatic disease. Furthermore, after radiotherapy, the levels of ctDNA decreased in most of the patients and correlated with pain and tumor size reduction. On the other hand, persistently elevated levels of ctDNA were associated with resistance to treatment and poor prognosis [75]. In MM, ctDNA may be used to monitoring disease by next-generation sequencing of V(D)J rearrangements and for detecting minimal residual disease. [76, 77]

ctDNA has been considered as a promising noninvasive tool for monitoring response to treatment, particularly in situations of active disease. However, given that ctDNA may be undetectable in more than half of the patients with positive MRD in the BM [76, 78], it may not yet serve as a robust biomarker for disease monitoring compared to NGS or NGF. In the study by Oberle et al. [76], only 39% of patients with less than a very good partial response displayed detectable ctDNA, suggesting that the mechanisms by which M protein and ctDNA are released into the bloodstream appear to be independent of each other. Thus, monitoring the disease using ctDNA may be a possibility in situations where M protein is not a reliable biomarker, such as in light chain escape and non-secretory or oligo-secretory disease. Moreover, qualitative information can be obtained by examining the genetic alterations associated with the tumor, facilitating decision-making based on precision medicine [79].

Circulating microRNA

MiRNAs are small sequences of RNA, approximately 25 nucleotides long, found in various body fluids [80, 81]. In blood, miRNAs circulate stably bound to proteins, high-density lipoproteins, within extracellular vesicles such as exosomes or in apoptotic vesicles [82, 83]. They regulate gene expression by either promoting messenger RNA (mRNA) degradation or repressing its translation, playing crucial roles in a variety of physiological- and cancer-related processes, including cell motility, differentiation, proliferation, and apoptosis [84]. It is not yet certain whether circulating miRNAs are passively released into the circulation from apoptotic and necrotic cells or if they are specifically secreted, for instance, in exosomes [85, 86].

Methods for measuring circulating miRNAs are not yet validated or standardized. Current strategies begin with extraction and purification of circulating miRNAs from plasma or serum, followed by screening and identification of sequences of interest using micro-arrays, subsequently confirmed and validated by RT-PCR. NGS, although potentially useful for discovering new miRNAs, is more expensive and time-consuming and needs further development for this application.

Several groups have identified different miRNA with important roles in MM pathogenesis and progression, providing a potential tool for distinguishing MM patients from healthy controls and MGUS patients (Table 1). In MM, miRNAs exhibited similar expression patterns in peripheral blood and BM aspirates [87], which makes them good candidates for biomarkers of disease both at diagnosis, during treatment, and relapse.

Table 1 Overview of specific miRNA as potential biomarkers for MM and other monoclonal gammopathies

Thus far, no single miRNA was shown to predict the evolution from MGUS to MM. However, the combination of miR-1246 and miR-1308 was able to distinguish between MGUS and MM [92]. Also, in MGUS patients, miR-92a plasma level was significantly higher compared to MM patients, but there was no significant difference between patients with smoldering disease and MGUS [91].

MiRNAs have been reported as a prognostic tool and correlate with survival outcomes in MM [80, 92,93,94, 96, 97]. Concerning the response to treatment, miR-92a plasma levels were described to return to baseline in patients achieving CR but not in those achieving only partial response (PR) or very good partial response (VGPR) [91]. Patients with high serum expression levels of miR-17-92 cluster had shorter PFS compared to those with low level expression [98], suggesting that this cluster is associated with poor prognosis in MM. Low level miR-483-5p was associated with better PFS [95]. Multivariate analysis revealed that miR-19a was a significant predictor of shorter PFS and OS [94]. Expression of some miRNAs dynamically change in MM patient’s plasma/serum during disease progression, and so continuous detection of miRNA levels in blood could be used to monitor disease status and assess prognosis. High miR-34a and low let-7d expressions were observed in relapsed MM patients compared to levels in patients at the time of diagnosis [91].

There seems to be a relation between changes in miRNA pattern of expression and specific genetic abnormalities, particularly cytogenetic abnormalities associated with poor prognosis such as del(13q14), 1q12 amplification, or t(4;14) [93]. Deregulation of target genes of miRNAs upregulated in t(4;14) MM genetic subtype seems to promote oncogenesis by modulating the expression of proteins associated with cellular growth and proliferation (Table 2).

Table 2 Correlation of miRNA and cytogenetic abnormalities

As an example, the gene for miR-744 is in the 17p12 region where various tumor-related genes are closely situated (TP53, BRCA1, and FBXO4) and deletions at chromosome 17p13.1-17p12 were previously associated with poor survival in cancers [100]. Moreover, downregulation of several miRNAs resulted in overexpression of cyclin D2 (CCND2) as observed in t(4;14) and t(14;16), suggesting for the first time that miRNA expression patterns in MM were correlated with protein expression patterns in specific genetic abnormalities [101].

Furthermore, targeting deregulated miRNA in MM might be a promising therapeutic approach. Among the potential targets, miR-21 is upregulated in MGUS and MM, promoting survival and progression. Interleukin-6 is responsible for regulating miR-21 through Stat-3 activation, a central pathway for MM cell growth and drug resistance. Tumor suppressor genes such as PTEN, BTG2, and Rho-B are targeted by miR-21. Upregulation of their expression with oligonucleotide inhibitors of miR-21 may result in anti-tumor activity against MM [102].

Additionally, aberrant expression of several miRNAs has been observed in drug-resistant myeloma cell lines, suggesting that deregulated miRNAs might be involved in drug resistance of MM cells (Table 3).

Table 3 Correlation between miRNA and drug resistance in MM

Extracellular vesicles

Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are bilayer lipid particles naturally released from all cells [106]. Major roles for EVs have been proposed in numerous physiological and pathological processes. In cancer, EVs are emerging as novel players in intercellular communication that transfer cargo molecules (including RNA, DNA, proteins, among others) that, when up taken by target cells, can influence their behavior [107]. EVs derived both from MM cells and bone marrow stromal cells (BMSC) have been found to intervene in key processes of MM such as tumor progression [108], immunosuppression [109], osteogenesis [110, 111], angiogenesis [112,113,114] procoagulant activity [115], and drug resistance [116,117,118] through the transfer of proteins and regulation of miRNA expression in the bone marrow microenvironment.

Since EVs can be found in several biological fluids, such as peripheral blood [119], it makes them an attractive biomarker in liquid biopsies. In the clinical setting, we and others have shown that MM patients have different EV miRNA expression levels and protein content compared to healthy subjects [116, 120]. Moreover, the content analysis of these EVs has been used as prognostic factor [116] and to predict therapy resistance in MM patients [117].

Because EVs are a new field of research, several challenges remain, including the nomenclature of distinct subtypes of EVs, the lack of good established markers, and diversity of separation protocols [107]. In an attempt to improve standardization to the field, the International Society for Extracellular Vesicles recently updated their guidelines for the analysis of EVs and the reporting of the results. For instance, special considerations for EV separation from biological fluids such as blood derivates need to be considered and technical factors should be recorded for reproducibility. Factors as such as donor age, biological sex, diet, specific diseases, and medications, among many others, may affect circulating EV [106]. On the other hand, technical factors including pre-analytical variables such as source of EV, storage conditions, manipulation of the source material, and experimental conditions can affect EV recovery [106].

Finally, one should take into account that, according to these guidelines, complete isolation of EVs from other entities is currently an unrealistic goal. Separation of EVs from other non-EV components can be achieved to various degrees by the different techniques. The degree of EVs purification depends on the experimental question and the need to attribute a function to vesicles as compared with other particles [106].

Precise characterization of RNA, DNA, and protein components of EVs and non-vesicle compartments are needed to clarify the heterogeneity of EVs. This is crucial to identify biomarkers and avoid potential overlap when using such components as liquid biopsies. Recently, Jeppesen et al. demonstrated that extracellular double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) and histones are not associated with exosomes or any EVs but instead released as non-vesicular entities, proposing a new model for active secretion of extracellular DNA through autophagy and multi-vesicular-endosome–dependent but exosome-independent mechanism [121].

In MM, several studies have investigated EVs as an active vehicle for molecules that can modulate the BM microenvironment. In 2013, Roccaro et al. demonstrated that EVs derived from BM mesenchymal stromal cells (BM-MSCs) of MM patients have different functional activity compared to healthy donors, showing higher contents of oncogenic proteins, cytokines, and proteins that are regulators of adhesion and migration [108]. Considering bone disease, Faict et al. demonstrated in vivo that MM-derived EVs could induce osteolysis in a similar pattern as the MM cells themselves [110]. Interestingly, the authors showed that blocking EVs secretion using the sphingomyelinase inhibitor GW4869 not only increased cortical bone volume but also sensitized the myeloma cells to bortezomib, leading to a stronger anti-tumor response when GW4869 and bortezomib were combined. On the other hand, Zarfati el al. showed that EVs released from MM cell lines after treatment with bortezomib promoted suppression of angiogenesis by decreasing proliferation and migration of endothelial cells [114], suggesting that EV-mediated cell to cell communication in MM BM microenvironment may influence mechanisms of drug resistance.

In the clinical setting, Manier et al. showed that the use of miRNAs contained in circulating EVs predict poor prognosis in newly diagnosed MM patients [116]. These authors analyzed EVs isolated from serum samples from 156 patients with newly diagnosed MM uniformly treated with bortezomib and dexamethasone and showed that let-7b and miR-18a were significantly associated with poor PFS and overall survival (OS), independently of the International Staging System and cytogenetics. Moreover, Zhang et al. showed that a downregulation of exosomal miR-16-6p, miR-15a-5p, miR-20a-5p, and miR-17-5p was found in patients resistant to bortezomib [117]. In another study, Sun et al. reported that EV miR-214 secreted by osteoclasts is transferred to osteoblasts, inhibiting their activity. Circulating miR-214 levels were found to be significantly increased in EVs from osteoporotic patients in comparison to the non-osteoporotic ones, suggesting a potential use of EVs as new biomarkers for MM-related bone disease.

Since MM is a multifocal disease with spatial and genetic heterogeneity, one can hypothesize that the cellular crosstalk through EVs can be implicated in disease behavior, sustaining potential transfer of mechanisms of progression or drug resistance between cells in different niches. In the future, by having access to circulating EVs in MM patients, it will be possible to have a new and dynamic insight into this disease, in a minimally invasive way.

Discussion and conclusions

Tumor biopsy is currently the gold standard for assessing somatic alterations, but this approach is invasive and does not consider tumor heterogeneity. Liquid biopsies may be considered a better alternative because of their noninvasive, rapid, precise, and almost real-time attributes. However, before being applied to the clinical setting, these methodologies need to be harmonized and validated in well-powered and well-designed studies. One of the primary prerequisites is the incorporation of these analyses in the follow-up strategy and checking of the concordance with gold-standard detection methods as imaging, M protein concentration, and biopsy histology.

In this review, an overview of the use of the emerging new field of liquid biopsies in myeloma patients is provided considering current unmet medical needs such as better access to the dynamic mutational landscape of myeloma, early predictors of treatment response, and disease monitoring overtime in a less invasive way. These biomarkers add to the recent insights into the genetic landscape of MM, providing a valuable opportunity to implement precision medicine approaches with the objective of enabling better patient profiling and selection of targeted therapies. Table 4 summarizes some of the advantages and limitations of the different approaches here analyzed.

Table 4 Comparison between the different approaches to liquid biopsies

As aberrant miRNA expression is a common feature in a variety of cancers, including MM, these molecules offer exciting new opportunities for the discovery and validation of novel therapeutic targets. The published evidence on miRNA as potential biomarkers for MM and on data establishing the role of different miRNAs as prognostic factors in MM was reviewed. Whether or not specific miRNAs play a significant role in pathogenesis or treatment needs further investigation, including long-term clinical data, both in clinical trials and in real life. Some of the data on miRNAs refer to specific miRNAs found in EVs. Several studies have explored the biological function of EVs and their potential clinical use in MM patients. Because EVs can be measured through minimally invasive procedures and their contents are relevant as disease biomarkers, they have a strong potential to be translated into clinical practice [122]. As potential new biomarkers in MM, EVs may offer the advantage of assessing the cellular crosstalk between tumor cells and surrounding cells, including the potential interception of intercellular communication before onset of clinical symptoms, response to treatment, patient follow up, and disease aggressiveness. Additionally, both miRNAs and EVs constitute potential targets for therapeutic intervention. However, one should consider the current technical limitations of EV isolation, including lack of standardization protocols. Current methods for EVs isolation are still very time-consuming impairing their use in the clinical practice. More sensitive and user-friendly methods of EVs analysis such as nanoparticle flow cytometry are currently being validated and will hopefully overcome this. Additionally, new potential targets for MM diagnosis and monitoring are being evaluated. Tumor-educated blood platelets (TEPs) were recently identified as noninvasive biomarkers by sequestering EV-derived RNAs and proteins, therefore providing information on the presence, location, and molecular characteristics of cancers [123]. Platelets are fundamental components of the tumor microenvironment that mediate crucial steps in tumor progression. Takagi et al. recently demonstrated that platelets derived from MM patients are highly activated and correlated with disease status. Their work showed that platelet-mediated upregulation of IL-1β through induction of IL-6, a growth and survival factor for MM cells, is critical for MM proliferation [124]. These preclinical data suggest that not only TEP RNA could complement biomarkers used for liquid biopsy diagnosis but also disease progression might be delayed by early targeting platelet-tumor interaction in MM via platelet-regulating agents.

Future studies taking into consideration larger cohorts of patients, different disease stages, and various therapeutic settings are required to further explore the relevance of liquid biopsies in MM, both in the clinical and investigational settings.


  1. 1.

    Landgren O, Kyle R, Pfeiffer RM, Katzmann J, Caporaso NE, Richard B, et al (2014) Monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) consistently precedes multiple myeloma: a prospective study. 113(22):5412–7

  2. 2.

    Weiss BM, Abadie J, Verma P, Howard RS, Kuehl WM (2009) A monoclonal gammopathy precedes multiple myeloma in most patients. Clin Trialsand Obs 113(22):5418–5422

  3. 3.

    João C, Coelho I, Costa C, Esteves S, Lucio P. Efficacy and safety of lenalidomide in relapse/refractory multiple myeloma—real life experience of a tertiary cancer center

  4. 4.

    Kumar SK, Dispenzieri A, Lacy MQ, Gertz MA, Buadi FK, Pandey S, et al. (2014) Continued improvement in survival in multiple myeloma: changes in early mortality and outcomes in older patients. Leukemia [Internet]. 28:1122–8. Available from:

  5. 5.

    Sonneveld P, Westin J, Shimizu K, Morgan G, Greipp PR, Durie BGM et al (2005) International staging system for multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 23(15):3412–3420

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Palumbo A, Avet-Loiseau H, Oliva S, Lokhorst HM, Goldschmidt H, Rosinol L et al (2015 Aug) Revised international staging system for multiple myeloma: a report from international myeloma working group. J Clin Oncol 33(26):2863–2869

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Nahi H, Våtsveen TK, Lund J, Heeg BMS, Preiss B, Alici E, Møller MB, Wader KF, Møller HE, Grøseth LA, Østergaard B, Dai HY, Holmberg E, Gahrton G, Waage A, Abildgaard N (2016 Jan 1) Proteasome inhibitors and IMiDs can overcome some high-risk cytogenetics in multiple myeloma but not gain 1q21. Eur J Haematol 96(1):46–54

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Sawyer JR, Tian E, Heuck CJ, Johann DJ, Epstein J, Swanson CM, Lukacs JL, Binz RL, Johnson M, Sammartino G, Zangari M, Davies FE, van Rhee F, Morgan GJ, Barlogie B (2015 Jun 11) Evidence of an epigenetic origin for high-risk 1q21 copy number aberrations in multiple myeloma. Blood. 125(24):3756–3759

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Sonneveld P, Avet-Loiseau H, Lonial S, Usmani S, Siegel D, Anderson KC, et al. (2016) Treatment of multiple myeloma with high-risk cytogenetics: a consensus of the International Myeloma Working Group. Vol. 127, Blood. American Society of Hematology; p. 2955–62

  10. 10.

    Zamagni E, Tacchetti P, Cavo M (2019) Imaging in multiple myeloma: how? When? Blood. 133(7):644 LP – 651

  11. 11.

    Rasche L, Chavan SS, Stephens OW, Patel PH, Tytarenko R, Ashby C et al (2017 Dec) Spatial genomic heterogeneity in multiple myeloma revealed by multi-region sequencing. Nat Commun 8(1):268

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Manier S, Salem KZ, Park J, Landau DA, Getz G, Ghobrial IM (2016 Aug) Genomic complexity of multiple myeloma and its clinical implications. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 14:100

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Morgan GJ, Walker BA, Davies FE (2012) The genetic architecture of multiple myeloma. Vol. 12, Nature Reviews Cancer. p. 335–48

  14. 14.

    Sun T, Wang S, Sun H, Wen J, An G, Li J (2018 Jan) Improved survival in multiple myeloma, with a diminishing racial gap and a widening socioeconomic status gap over three decades. Leuk Lymphoma 59(1):49–58

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Flores-Montero J, Sanoja-Flores L, Paiva B, Puig N, García-Sánchez O, Böttcher S et al (2017 Jan) Next generation flow for highly sensitive and standardized detection of minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma. Leukemia. 31:2094

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Perrot A, Lauwers-Cances V, Corre J, Robillard N, Hulin C, Chretien M-L, et al. (2018) Minimal residual disease negativity using deep sequencing is a major prognostic factor in multiple myeloma. Blood. 132(23):2456 LP – 2464

  17. 17.

    Kumar S, Paiva B, Anderson KC, Durie B, Landgren O, Moreau P, Munshi N, Lonial S, Bladé J, Mateos MV, Dimopoulos M, Kastritis E, Boccadoro M, Orlowski R, Goldschmidt H, Spencer A, Hou J, Chng WJ, Usmani SZ, Zamagni E, Shimizu K, Jagannath S, Johnsen HE, Terpos E, Reiman A, Kyle RA, Sonneveld P, Richardson PG, McCarthy P, Ludwig H, Chen W, Cavo M, Harousseau JL, Lentzsch S, Hillengass J, Palumbo A, Orfao A, Rajkumar SV, Miguel JS, Avet-Loiseau H (2016 Aug) International myeloma working group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol 17(8):e328–e346

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Munshi NC, Avet-Loiseau H, Rawstron AC, Owen RG, Child JA, Thakurta A, Sherrington P, Samur MK, Georgieva A, Anderson KC, Gregory WM (2017 Jan) Association of minimal residual disease with superior survival outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma. JAMA Oncol 3(1):28–35

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    De Rubis G, Rajeev Krishnan S, Bebawy M (2019 Mar) Liquid biopsies in cancer diagnosis, monitoring, and prognosis. Trends Pharmacol Sci 40(3):172–186

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Kwapisz D (2017) The first liquid biopsy test approved. Is it a new era of mutation testing for non-small cell lung cancer? Ann Transl Med Vol 5, No 3 Ann Transl Med (Focus “Treatment Hepat B”) 2017

  21. 21.

    Wills B, Gorse E, Lee V. (2018) Role of liquid biopsies in colorectal cancer. Curr Probl Cancer [Internet]. [cited 2019 Sep 12];42(6):593–600. Available from:

  22. 22.

    Robiou du Pont S, Cleynen A, Fontan C, Attal M, Munshi N, Corre J, Avet-Loiseau H (2017 Mar) Genomics of multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 35(9):963–967

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Bolli N, Avet-Loiseau H, Wedge DC, Van Loo P, Alexandrov LB, Martincorena I et al (2014 Jan) Heterogeneity of genomic evolution and mutational profiles in multiple myeloma. Nat Commun 5:2997

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Walker BA, Boyle EM, Wardell CP, Murison A, Begum DB, Dahir NM, Proszek PZ, Johnson DC, Kaiser MF, Melchor L, Aronson LI, Scales M, Pawlyn C, Mirabella F, Jones JR, Brioli A, Mikulasova A, Cairns DA, Gregory WM, Quartilho A, Drayson MT, Russell N, Cook G, Jackson GH, Leleu X, Davies FE, Morgan GJ (2015 Aug) Mutational spectrum, copy number changes, and outcome: results of a sequencing study of patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. J Clin Oncol 33(33):3911–3920

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Walker BA, Wardell CP, Melchor L, Brioli A, Johnson DC, Kaiser MF et al (2013 Jul) Intraclonal heterogeneity is a critical early event in the development of myeloma and precedes the development of clinical symptoms. Leukemia. 28:384

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Bolli N, Li Y, Sathiaseelan V, Raine K, Jones D, Ganly P et al (2016) A DNA target-enrichment approach to detect mutations, copy number changes and immunoglobulin translocations in multiple myeloma. Blood Cancer J 6:e467

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Chapman MA, Lawrence MS, Keats JJ, Cibulskis K, Sougnez C, Schinzel AC et al (2011 Mar) Initial genome sequencing and analysis of multiple myeloma. Nature. 471:467

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Gould J, Vij R, Fonseca R, Hofmeister CC, Perkins LM, Kumar S et al (2014) Widespread genetic heterogeneity in multiple myeloma: implications for targeted therapy. Cancer Cell 25(1):91–101

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Hoang PH, Dobbins SE, Cornish AJ, Chubb D, Law PJ, Kaiser M, Houlston RS (2018) Whole-genome sequencing of multiple myeloma reveals oncogenic pathways are targeted somatically through multiple mechanisms. Leukemia. 32(11):2459–2470

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Keats JJ, Chesi M, Egan JB, Garbitt VM, Palmer SE, Braggio E, et al. (2012) Clonal competition with alternating dominance in multiple myeloma. Blood. ;120(5):1067 LP – 1076

  31. 31.

    Weinhold N, Ashby C, Rasche L, Chavan SS, Stein C, Stephens OW, et al. (2016) Clonal selection and double-hit events involving tumor suppressor genes underlie relapse in myeloma. Blood. 128(13):1735 LP – 1744

  32. 32.

    Egan JB, Shi C-X, Tembe W, Christoforides A, Kurdoglu A, Sinari S, et al. 2012 Whole-genome sequencing of multiple myeloma from diagnosis to plasma cell leukemia reveals genomic initiating events, evolution, and clonal tides. Blood. Aug;120(5):1060 LP – 1066

  33. 33.

    Melchor L, Brioli A, Wardell CP, Murison A, Potter NE, Kaiser MF et al (2014 Jan) Single-cell genetic analysis reveals the composition of initiating clones and phylogenetic patterns of branching and parallel evolution in myeloma. Leukemia. 28:1705

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Corre J, Cleynen A, Robiou du Pont S, Buisson L, Bolli N, Attal M et al (2018) Multiple myeloma clonal evolution in homogeneously treated patients. Leukemia. 32(12):2636–2647

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Lohr JG, Stojanov P, Carter SL, Cruz-Gordillo P, Lawrence MS, Auclair D, Sougnez C, Knoechel B, Gould J, Saksena G, Cibulskis K, McKenna A, Chapman MA, Straussman R, Levy J, Perkins LM, Keats JJ, Schumacher SE, Rosenberg M, Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium, Getz G, Golub TR (2014 Jan) Widespread genetic heterogeneity in multiple myeloma: implications for targeted therapy. Cancer Cell 25(1):91–101

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Raab MS, Lehners N, Xu J, Ho AD, Schirmacher P, Goldschmidt H, et al. (2016) Spatially divergent clonal evolution in multiple myeloma: overcoming resistance to BRAF inhibition. Blood. 127(17):2155 LP – 2157

  37. 37.

    Hyman DM, Puzanov I, Subbiah V, Faris JE, Chau I, Blay J-Y, Wolf J, Raje NS, Diamond EL, Hollebecque A, Gervais R, Elez-Fernandez ME, Italiano A, Hofheinz RD, Hidalgo M, Chan E, Schuler M, Lasserre SF, Makrutzki M, Sirzen F, Veronese ML, Tabernero J, Baselga J (2015) Vemurafenib in multiple nonmelanoma cancers with BRAF V600 mutations. N Engl J Med 373(8):726–736

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Bohn OL, Hsu K, Hyman DM, Pignataro DS, Giralt S, Teruya-Feldstein J (2014 Apr) BRAF V600E mutation and clonal evolution in a patient with relapsed refractory myeloma with plasmablastic differentiation. Clin Lymphoma, Myeloma Leuk 14(2):e65–e68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Wu J, Ross J, Peale F V, Shaughnessy JD, Van Laar RK, Morgan GJ, et al. (2016) A Favorable BCL-2 Family expression profile may explain the increased susceptibility of the t(11;14) multiple myeloma subgroup to single agent venetoclax. Blood. ;128(22):5613 LP – 5613

  40. 40.

    Kumar S, Kaufman JL, Gasparetto C, Mikhael J, Vij R, Pegourie B, et al. (2017) Efficacy of venetoclax as targeted therapy for relapsed/refractory t(11;14) multiple myeloma. Blood.;130(22):2401 LP – 2409

  41. 41.

    Kaufman JL, Gasparetto CJ, Mikhael J, Moreau P, Touzeau C, Vij R, et al. (2017) Phase 1 study of venetoclax in combination with dexamethasone as targeted therapy for t(11;14) relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Blood. 130(Suppl 1):3131 LP – 3131

  42. 42.

    Moreau P, Chanan-Khan A, Roberts AW, Agarwal AB, Facon T, Kumar S, et al. (2017) Promising efficacy and acceptable safety of venetoclax plus bortezomib and dexamethasone in relapsed/ refractory MM. Blood. blood-2017-06-788323

  43. 43.

    Costa LJ, Stadtmauer EA, Morgan G, Monohan G, Kovacsovics T, Burwick N, et al. (2018) Phase 2 study of venetoclax plus carfilzomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. Blood. 132(Suppl 1):303 LP – 303

  44. 44.

    Potdar P, Lotey N (2015) Role of circulating tumor cells in future diagnosis and therapy of cancer. J Cancer Metastasis Treat 1(2):44

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Ghobrial IM. Myeloma as a model for the process of metastasis: implications for therapy. Blood [Internet]. 2012 Jul 5 [cited 2019 Aug 19];120(1):20–30. Available from:

  46. 46.

    Rhim AD, Mirek ET, Aiello NM, Maitra A, Bailey JM, McAllister F et al (2012) EMT and dissemination precede pancreatic tumor formation. Cell. 148(1–2):349–361

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Krebs MG, Hou J-M, Ward TH, Blackhall FH, Dive C (2010) Circulating tumour cells: their utility in cancer management and predicting outcomes. Ther Adv Med Oncol 2(6):351–365

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Sundling KE, Lowe AC (2019) Circulating tumor cells: overview and opportunities in cytology. Adv Anat Pathol 26(1):56–63

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Krebs MG, Metcalf RL, Carter L, Brady G, Blackhall FH, Dive C (2014) Molecular analysis of circulating tumour cells — biology and biomarkers. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 11(3):1–16

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Alunni-Fabbroni M, Sandri MT (2010) Circulating tumour cells in clinical practice: methods of detection and possible characterization. Methods. 50(4):289–297

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Pantel K, Alix-Panabières C, Riethdorf S (2009) Cancer micrometastases. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 6:339–351

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Paterlini-Brechot P, Benali NL (2007) Circulating tumor cells (CTC) detection: clinical impact and future directions. Cancer Lett 253(2):180–204

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Farace F, Massard C, Vimond N, Drusch F, Jacques N, Billiot F et al (2011 Aug) A direct comparison of CellSearch and ISET for circulating tumour-cell detection in patients with metastatic carcinomas. Br J Cancer 105:847

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Miller MC, Doyle GV, Terstappen LWMM (2010) Significance of circulating tumor cells detected by the CellSearch system in patients with metastatic breast colorectal and prostate cancer. J Oncol 2010:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Cristofanilli M, Budd GT, Ellis MJ, Stopeck A, Matera J, Miller MC, Reuben JM, Doyle GV, Allard WJ, Terstappen LW, Hayes DF (2004) Circulating tumor cells, disease progression, and survival in metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med 351(8):781–791

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Cohen SJ, Punt CJA, Iannotti N, Saidman BH, Sabbath KD, Gabrail NY, Picus J, Morse M, Mitchell E, Miller MC, Doyle GV, Tissing H, Terstappen LW, Meropol NJ (2008 Jul) Relationship of circulating tumor cells to tumor response, progression-free survival, and overall survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 26(19):3213–3221

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    de Bono JS, Scher HI, Montgomery RB, Parker C, Miller MC, Tissing H, et al. (2008) Circulating tumor cells predict survival benefit from treatment in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 14(19):6302 LP – 6309

  58. 58.

    Sun Y-F, Yang X-R, Zhou J, Qiu S-J, Fan J, Xu Y (2011 Jun) Circulating tumor cells: advances in detection methods, biological issues, and clinical relevance. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 137(8):1151–1173

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Foulk B, Schaffer M, Gross S, Rao C, Smirnov D, Connelly MC et al (2018) Enumeration and characterization of circulating multiple myeloma cells in patients with plasma cell disorders. Br J Hematol 180:71–81

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Zhang L, Beasley S, Prigozhina NL, Higgins R, Ikeda S, Lee FY et al (2016) Detection and characterization of circulating tumour cells in multiple myeloma. J Circ Biomarkers 5(11):1–8

    Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Garcés JJ, Šimíček M, Vicari M, Brozova L, Burgos L, Bezděková R, et al. (2019) Transcriptomic profiling of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in multiple myeloma (MM): a new model to understand disease dissemination. Blood [Internet]. 2018 [cited 19];132(Suppl 1):245 LP – 245. Available from:

  62. 62.

    Lohr JG, Kim S, Gould J, Knoechel B, Drier Y, Cotton MJ, et al. (2016) Genetic interrogation of circulating multiple myeloma cells at single-cell resolution. Sci Transl Med [Internet]. [cited 2019 Aug 20];8(363):363ra147. Available from:

  63. 63.

    Paiva B, Paino T, Sayagues J, Garayoa M, San-segundo L, Mota I et al (2013) Detailed characterization of multiple myeloma circulating tumor cells shows unique phenotypic, cytogenetic, functional, and circadian distribution profile. Blood. 122(22):3591–3599

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Li J, Wang N, Tesfaluul N, Gao X, Liu S, Yue B, (2017) Prognostic value of circulating plasma cells in patients with multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis. PLoS One [Internet]. [cited 2019 Aug 20];12(7):e0181447. Available from:

  65. 65.

    Nowakowski GS, Witzig TE, Dingli D, Tracz MJ, Gertz MA, Lacy MQ, et al. (2005) Circulating plasma cells detected by flow cytometry as a predictor of survival in 302 patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Blood [Internet]. [cited 2019 Aug 19];106(7):2276–9. Available from:

  66. 66.

    Gonsalves WI, Morice WG, Rajkumar V, Gupta V, Timm MM, Dispenzieri A, et al. (2014) Quantification of clonal circulating plasma cells in relapsed multiple myeloma. Br J Haematol [Internet]. [cited 2019 Aug 19];167(4):500–5. Available from:

  67. 67.

    Bianchi G, Richardson PG, Anderson KC (2015) Title Page Bianchi et al. Promising therapies in myeloma promising therapies in multiple myeloma. Blood First Ed Pap [Internet]. Available from:

  68. 68.

    Mithraprabhu S, Spencer A (2017) Circulating tumour DNA analysis in multiple myeloma. Vol. 8, Oncotarget. Impact Journals LLC; p. 90610–1

  69. 69.

    Gerber B, Manzoni M, Spina V, Bruscaggin A, Lionetti M, Fabris S, Barbieri M, Ciceri G, Pompa A, Forestieri G, Lerch E, Servida P, Bertoni F, Zucca E, Ghielmini M, Cortelezzi A, Cavalli F, Stussi G, Baldini L, Rossi D, Neri A (2018 Jun) Circulating tumor DNA as a liquid biopsy in plasma cell dyscrasias. Haematologica. 103(6):e245–e248

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Rustad EH, Coward E, Skytøen ER, Misund K, Holien T, Standal T, Børset M, Beisvag V, Myklebost O, Meza-Zepeda LA, Dai HY, Sundan A, Waage A (2017 Jul) Monitoring multiple myeloma by quantification of recurrent mutations in serum. Haematologica. 102(7):1266–1272

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Kis O, Kaedbey R, Chow S, Danesh A, Dowar M, Li T et al (2017 May) Circulating tumour DNA sequence analysis as an alternative to multiple myeloma bone marrow aspirates. Nat Commun 8:15086

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Weinhold N, Chavan SS, Heuck C, Stephens OW, Tytarenko R, Bauer M et al (2015) High risk multiple myeloma demonstrates marked spatial genomic heterogeneity between focal lesions and random bone marrow; implications for targeted therapy and treatment resistance. Blood.:126(23)

  73. 73.

    Hohaus S, Giachelia M, Massini G, Mansueto G, Vannata B, Bozzoli V, Criscuolo M, D'Alò F, Martini M, Larocca LM, Voso MT, Leone G (2009 May) Cell-free circulating DNA in Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas. Ann Oncol 20(8):1408–1413

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Schwarz AK, Stanulla M, Cario G, Flohr T, Sutton R, Möricke A, Anker P, Stroun M, Welte K, Bartram CR, Schrappe M, Schrauder A (2009) Quantification of free total plasma DNA and minimal residual disease detection in the plasma of children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Ann Hematol 88(9):897–905

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Leon SA, Shapiro B, Sklaroff DM, Yaros MJ (1977) Free DNA in the serum of cancer patients and the effect of therapy. Cancer Res. 37(3):646 LP – 650

  76. 76.

    Oberle A, Brandt A, Voigtlaender M, Thiele B, Radloff J, Schulenkorf A, et al. (2017) Monitoring multiple myeloma by next-generation sequencing of V(D)J rearrangements from circulating myeloma cells and cell-free myeloma DNA. Haematologica. 102(6):1105 LP – 1111

  77. 77.

    Pugh TJ (2018) Circulating tumour DNA for detecting minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma. Semin Hematol 55(1):38–40

    PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Mazzotti C, Buisson L, Maheo S, Perrot A, Chretien M-L, Leleu X, et al. (2018) Myeloma MRD by deep sequencing from circulating tumor DNA does not correlate with results obtained in the bone marrow. Blood Adv. 2(21):2811 LP – 2813

  79. 79.

    Wan JCM, Massie C, Garcia-Corbacho J, Mouliere F, Brenton JD, Caldas C et al (2017 Feb) Liquid biopsies come of age: towards implementation of circulating tumour DNA. Nat Rev Cancer 17:223

    CAS  PubMed  Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Weber JA, Baxter DH, Zhang S, Huang DY, Huang KH, Lee MJ, et al. (2010) The microRNA spectrum in 12 body fluids; Available from:

  81. 81.

    Wang K, Yuan Y, Cho JH, McClarty S, Baxter D, Galas DJ (2012) Comparing the MicroRNA spectrum between serum and plasma. PLoS One

  82. 82.

    Mittelbrunn M, Gutiérrez-Vázquez C, Villarroya-Beltri C, González S, Sánchez-Cabo F, González MÁ, et al (2011) Unidirectional transfer of microRNA-loaded exosomes from T cells to antigen-presenting cells. Nat Commun

  83. 83.

    Jaiswal R, Luk F, Gong J, Mathys JM, Grau GER, Bebawy M (2012) Microparticle conferred microRNA profiles - implications in the transfer and dominance of cancer traits. Mol Cancer

  84. 84.

    Mitchell PS, Parkin RK, Kroh EM, Fritz BR, Wyman SK, Pogosova-Agadjanyan EL, et al. (2008) Circulating microRNAs as stable blood-based markers for cancer detection. Vol. 105, PNAS

  85. 85.

    Turchinovich A, Weiz L, Burwinkel B (2012) Extracellular miRNAs: the mystery of their origin and function. Trends Biochem Sci

  86. 86.

    Ohshima K, Inoue K, Fujiwara A, Hatakeyama K, Kanto K, Watanabe Y et al (2010) Let-7 microRNA family is selectively secreted into the extracellular environment via exosomes in a metastatic gastric cancer cell line. PLoS One

  87. 87.

    Pichiorri F, Suh S-S, Ladetto M, Kuehl M, Palumbo T, Drandi D, et al (2008) MicroRNAs regulate critical genes associated with multiple myeloma pathogenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci

  88. 88.

    Sevcikova S, Kubiczkova L, Sedlarikova L, Slaby O, Hajek R. (2013) Serum miR-29a as a marker of multiple myeloma. Leuk Lymphoma [Internet]. [cited 2019 Jul 18];54(1):189–91. Available from:

  89. 89.

    Yu J, Qiu X, Shen X, Shi W, Wu X, Gu G, et al. (2014) miR-202 expression concentration and its clinical significance in the serum of multiple myeloma patients. Ann Clin Biochem

  90. 90.

    Huang JJ, Yu J, Li JY, Liu YT, Zhong RQ (2012) Circulating microRNA expression is associated with genetic subtype and survival of multiple myeloma. Med Oncol

  91. 91.

    Yoshizawa S, Ohyashiki JH, Ohyashiki M, Umezu T, Suzuki K, Inagaki A, et al. (2012) Downregulated plasma miR-92a levels have clinical impact on multiple myeloma and related disorders. Blood Cancer J

  92. 92.

    Jones CI, Zabolotskaya MV, King AJ, Stewart HJS, Horne GA, Chevassut TJ et al (2012) Identification of circulating microRNAs as diagnostic biomarkers for use in multiple myeloma. Br J Cancer

  93. 93.

    Kubiczkova L, Kryukov F, Slaby O, Dementyeva E, Jarkovsky J, Nekvindova J, et al (2014) Circulating serum microRNAs as novel diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers for multiple myeloma and monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. Haematologica

  94. 94.

    Hao M, Zang M, Wendlandt E, Xu Y, An G, Gong D, et al. (2015) Low serum miR-19a expression as a novel poor prognostic indicator in multiple myeloma. Int J Cancer

  95. 95.

    Qu X, Zhao M, Wu S, Yu W, Xu J, Xu J, et al. (2014) Circulating microRNA 483-5p as a novel biomarker for diagnosis survival prediction in multiple myeloma. Med Oncol

  96. 96.

    Navarro A, Díaz T, Tovar N, Pedrosa F, Tejero R, Cibeira MT, et al (2015) A serum microRNA signature associated with complete remission and progression after autologous stem-cell transplantation in patients with multiple myeloma. Oncotarget

  97. 97.

    Rocci A, Hofmeister CC, Geyer S, Stiff A, Gambella M, Cascione L, et al (2014) Circulating miRNA markers show promise as new prognosticators for multiple myeloma. Leukemia

  98. 98.

    Chen L, Li C, Zhang R, Gao X, Qu X, Zhao M, et al. (2011) MiR-17-92 cluster microRNAs confers tumorigenicity in multiple myeloma. Cancer Lett

  99. 99.

    Li F, Xu Y, Deng S, Li Z, Zou D, Yi S et al (2015) MicroRNA-15a/16-1 cluster located at chromosome 13q14 is down-regulated but displays different expression pattern and prognostic significance in multiple myeloma. Oncotarget. 10:6(35)

    Google Scholar 

  100. 100.

    Simon-Kayser B, Scoul C, Renaudin K, Jezequel P, Bouchot O, Rigaud J, et al. (2005) Molecular cloning and characterization of FBXO47, a novel gene containing an F-box domain, located in the 17q12 band deleted in papillary renal cell carcinoma. Genes Chromosom Cancer

  101. 101.

    Gutiérrez NC, Sarasquete ME, Misiewicz-Krzeminska I, Delgado M, De Las Rivas J, Ticona F V., et al. (2010) Deregulation of microRNA expression in the different genetic subtypes of multiple myeloma and correlation with gene expression profiling. Leukemia

  102. 102.

    Leone E, Morelli E, Di Martino MT, Amodio N, Foresta U, Gullà A, et al. (2013) Targeting miR-21 inhibits in vitro and in vivo multiple myeloma cell growth. Clin Cancer Res [Internet]. [cited 2019 Jul 18];19(8):2096–106. Available from:

  103. 103.

    Shen X, Guo Y, Qi J, Shi W, Wu X, Ni H, et al. (2016) Study on the association between miRNA-202 expression and drug sensitivity in multiple myeloma cells. Pathol Oncol Res [Internet]. [cited 2019 Jul 18];22(3):531–9. Available from:

  104. 104.

    Zhang J, Xiao X, Liu J (2015) The role of circulating miRNAs in multiple myeloma. Sci China Life Sci [Internet]. [cited 2019 Jul 18];58(12):1262–9. Available from:

  105. 105.

    Jung SH, Lee SE, Lee M, Kim SH, Yim SH, Kim TW, et al (2017) Circulating microRNA expressions can predict the outcome of lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone treatment in patients with refractory/relapsed multiple myeloma. Haematologica

  106. 106.

    Théry C, Witwer KW, Aikawa E, Alcaraz MJ, Anderson JD, Andriantsitohaina R, Antoniou A, Arab T, Archer F, Atkin-Smith GK, Ayre DC, Bach JM, Bachurski D, Baharvand H, Balaj L, Baldacchino S, Bauer NN, Baxter AA, Bebawy M, Beckham C, Bedina Zavec A, Benmoussa A, Berardi AC, Bergese P, Bielska E, Blenkiron C, Bobis-Wozowicz S, Boilard E, Boireau W, Bongiovanni A, Borràs FE, Bosch S, Boulanger CM, Breakefield X, Breglio AM, Brennan MÁ, Brigstock DR, Brisson A, Broekman ML, Bromberg JF, Bryl-Górecka P, Buch S, Buck AH, Burger D, Busatto S, Buschmann D, Bussolati B, Buzás EI, Byrd JB, Camussi G, Carter DR, Caruso S, Chamley LW, Chang YT, Chen C, Chen S, Cheng L, Chin AR, Clayton A, Clerici SP, Cocks A, Cocucci E, Coffey RJ, Cordeiro-da-Silva A, Couch Y, Coumans FA, Coyle B, Crescitelli R, Criado MF, D'Souza-Schorey C, Das S, Datta Chaudhuri A, de Candia P, de Santana EF, de Wever O, del Portillo H, Demaret T, Deville S, Devitt A, Dhondt B, di Vizio D, Dieterich LC, Dolo V, Dominguez Rubio AP, Dominici M, Dourado MR, Driedonks TA, Duarte FV, Duncan HM, Eichenberger RM, Ekström K, el Andaloussi S, Elie-Caille C, Erdbrügger U, Falcón-Pérez JM, Fatima F, Fish JE, Flores-Bellver M, Försönits A, Frelet-Barrand A, Fricke F, Fuhrmann G, Gabrielsson S, Gámez-Valero A, Gardiner C, Gärtner K, Gaudin R, Gho YS, Giebel B, Gilbert C, Gimona M, Giusti I, Goberdhan DC, Görgens A, Gorski SM, Greening DW, Gross JC, Gualerzi A, Gupta GN, Gustafson D, Handberg A, Haraszti RA, Harrison P, Hegyesi H, Hendrix A, Hill AF, Hochberg FH, Hoffmann KF, Holder B, Holthofer H, Hosseinkhani B, Hu G, Huang Y, Huber V, Hunt S, Ibrahim AG, Ikezu T, Inal JM, Isin M, Ivanova A, Jackson HK, Jacobsen S, Jay SM, Jayachandran M, Jenster G, Jiang L, Johnson SM, Jones JC, Jong A, Jovanovic-Talisman T, Jung S, Kalluri R, Kano SI, Kaur S, Kawamura Y, Keller ET, Khamari D, Khomyakova E, Khvorova A, Kierulf P, Kim KP, Kislinger T, Klingeborn M, Klinke DJ 2nd, Kornek M, Kosanović MM, Kovács ÁF, Krämer-Albers EM, Krasemann S, Krause M, Kurochkin IV, Kusuma GD, Kuypers S, Laitinen S, Langevin SM, Languino LR, Lannigan J, Lässer C, Laurent LC, Lavieu G, Lázaro-Ibáñez E, le Lay S, Lee MS, Lee YXF, Lemos DS, Lenassi M, Leszczynska A, Li IT, Liao K, Libregts SF, Ligeti E, Lim R, Lim SK, Linē A, Linnemannstöns K, Llorente A, Lombard CA, Lorenowicz MJ, Lörincz ÁM, Lötvall J, Lovett J, Lowry MC, Loyer X, Lu Q, Lukomska B, Lunavat TR, Maas SL, Malhi H, Marcilla A, Mariani J, Mariscal J, Martens-Uzunova ES, Martin-Jaular L, Martinez MC, Martins VR, Mathieu M, Mathivanan S, Maugeri M, McGinnis L, McVey M, Meckes DG Jr, Meehan KL, Mertens I, Minciacchi VR, Möller A, Møller Jørgensen M, Morales-Kastresana A, Morhayim J, Mullier F, Muraca M, Musante L, Mussack V, Muth DC, Myburgh KH, Najrana T, Nawaz M, Nazarenko I, Nejsum P, Neri C, Neri T, Nieuwland R, Nimrichter L, Nolan JP, Nolte-'t Hoen EN, Noren Hooten N, O'Driscoll L, O'Grady T, O'Loghlen A, Ochiya T, Olivier M, Ortiz A, Ortiz LA, Osteikoetxea X, Østergaard O, Ostrowski M, Park J, Pegtel DM, Peinado H, Perut F, Pfaffl MW, Phinney DG, Pieters BC, Pink RC, Pisetsky DS, Pogge von Strandmann E, Polakovicova I, Poon IK, Powell BH, Prada I, Pulliam L, Quesenberry P, Radeghieri A, Raffai RL, Raimondo S, Rak J, Ramirez MI, Raposo G, Rayyan MS, Regev-Rudzki N, Ricklefs FL, Robbins PD, Roberts DD, Rodrigues SC, Rohde E, Rome S, Rouschop KM, Rughetti A, Russell AE, Saá P, Sahoo S, Salas-Huenuleo E, Sánchez C, Saugstad JA, Saul MJ, Schiffelers RM, Schneider R, Schøyen TH, Scott A, Shahaj E, Sharma S, Shatnyeva O, Shekari F, Shelke GV, Shetty AK, Shiba K, Siljander PR, Silva AM, Skowronek A, Snyder OL 2nd, Soares RP, Sódar BW, Soekmadji C, Sotillo J, Stahl PD, Stoorvogel W, Stott SL, Strasser EF, Swift S, Tahara H, Tewari M, Timms K, Tiwari S, Tixeira R, Tkach M, Toh WS, Tomasini R, Torrecilhas AC, Tosar JP, Toxavidis V, Urbanelli L, Vader P, van Balkom B, van der Grein S, van Deun J, van Herwijnen M, van Keuren-Jensen K, van Niel G, van Royen M, van Wijnen A, Vasconcelos MH, Vechetti IJ Jr, Veit TD, Vella LJ, Velot É, Verweij FJ, Vestad B, Viñas JL, Visnovitz T, Vukman KV, Wahlgren J, Watson DC, Wauben MH, Weaver A, Webber JP, Weber V, Wehman AM, Weiss DJ, Welsh JA, Wendt S, Wheelock AM, Wiener Z, Witte L, Wolfram J, Xagorari A, Xander P, Xu J, Yan X, Yáñez-Mó M, Yin H, Yuana Y, Zappulli V, Zarubova J, Žėkas V, Zhang JY, Zhao Z, Zheng L, Zheutlin AR, Zickler AM, Zimmermann P, Zivkovic AM, Zocco D, Zuba-Surma EK (2018 Dec) Minimal information for studies of extracellular vesicles 2018 (MISEV2018): a position statement of the International Society for Extracellular Vesicles and update of the MISEV2014 guidelines. J Extracell Vesicles 7(1):1535750

  107. 107.

    Maia J, Caja S, Carolina M, Moraes S, Couto N, Costa-silva B (2018) Exosome-based cell-cell communication in the tumor microenvironment; 6(February):1–19

  108. 108.

    Roccaro AM, Sacco A, Maiso P, Azab AK, Tai YT, Reagan M, et al. (2013) BM mesenchymal stromal cell-derived exosomes facilitate multiple myeloma progression. J Clin Invest

  109. 109.

    Wang J, De Veirman K, De Beule N, Maes K, De Bruyne E, Valckenborgh E Van, et al (2015) The bone marrow microenvironment enhances multiple myeloma progression by exosome-mediated activation of myeloid-derived suppressor cells. Oncotarget. 6(41)

  110. 110.

    Faict S, Muller J, De Veirman K, De Bruyne E, Maes K, Vrancken L, et al. (2018) Exosomes play a role in multiple myeloma bone disease and tumor development by targeting osteoclasts and osteoblasts. Blood Cancer J.

  111. 111.

    Raimondi L, De Luca A, Amodio N, Manno M, Raccosta S, Taverna S, et al. (2015) Involvement of multiple myeloma cell-derived exosomes in osteoclast differentiation. Oncotarget. 6(15)

  112. 112.

    Guo HM, Sun L, Yang L, Liu XJ, Nie ZY, Luo JM (2018) Microvesicles shed from bortezomib-treated or lenalidomide-treated human myeloma cells inhibit angiogenesis in vitro. Oncol Rep

  113. 113.

    Zarfati M, Avivi I, Brenner B, Katz T, Aharon A (2018) Extracellular vesicles of multiple myeloma cells utilize the proteasome inhibitor mechanism to moderate endothelial angiogenesis. Angiogenesis

  114. 114.

    Zarfati M, Avivi I, Brenner B, Katz T, Aharon A (2018) Extracellular vesicles of multiple myeloma cells utilize the proteasome inhibitor mechanism to moderate endothelial angiogenesis. Angiogenesis.;0(0):0

  115. 115.

    Nielsen Id T, Kristensen SR, Gregersen H, Teodorescu EM, Christiansen G, Pedersenid S (2019) Extracellular vesicle-associated procoagulant phospholipid and tissue factor activity in multiple myeloma

  116. 116.

    Manier S, Liu CJ, Avet-Loiseau H, Park J, Shi J, Campigotto F, Salem KZ, Huynh D, Glavey SV, Rivotto B, Sacco A, Roccaro AM, Bouyssou J, Minvielle S, Moreau P, Facon T, Leleu X, Weller E, Trippa L, Ghobrial IM (2017) Prognostic role of circulating exosomal miRNAs in multiple myeloma. Blood. 129(17):2429–2436

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  117. 117.

    Zhang L, Pan L, Xiang B, Zhu H, Wu Y, Chen M Potential role of exosome-associated microRNA panels and in vivo environment to predict drug resistance for patients with multiple myeloma. 7(21)

  118. 118.

    Wang J, Hendrix A, Hernot S, Lemaire M, De Bruyne E, Valckenborgh E Van, et al (2014) Bone marrow stromal cell–derived exosomes as communicators in drug resistance in multiple myeloma cells;124(4):555–66

  119. 119.

    Keller S, Ridinger J, Rupp AK, Janssen JWG, Altevogt P (2011) Body fluid derived exosomes as a novel template for clinical diagnostics. J Transl Med 8:9

    Google Scholar 

  120. 120.

    Manier S, Avet-Loiseau H, Campigotto F, Shi J, Roccaro AM, Minvielle S et al (2015) Circulating exosomal microRNAs are critical prognostic markers independent of cytogenetics and international staging system in multiple myeloma. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk 15:e47–e48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. 121.

    Jeppesen DK, Fenix AM, Franklin JL, Higginbotham JN, Zhang Q, Zimmerman LJ, et al. Reassessment of exosome composition. Cell. 2019 Apr 4;177(2):428–445.e18

  122. 122.

    Ferreira BV, Lucio P, Neves M, Parreira A, Costa-Silva B, Joao C (2018) Characterization of circulating and bone marrow derived exosomes in multiple myeloma patients. Blood. 132(Suppl 1):3172 LP – 3172

  123. 123.

    Best MG, Wesseling P, Wurdinger T (2018) Tumor-educated platelets as a noninvasive biomarker source for cancer detection and progression monitoring. Vol. 78, Cancer Research. American Association for Cancer Research Inc.; p. 3407–12

  124. 124.

    Takagi S, Tsukamoto S, Park J, Johnson KE, Kawano Y, Moschetta M et al (2018) Platelets enhance multiple myeloma progression via il-1b upregulation. Clin Cancer Res 24(10):2430–2439

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cristina João.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ferreira, B., Caetano, J., Barahona, F. et al. Liquid biopsies for multiple myeloma in a time of precision medicine. J Mol Med 98, 513–525 (2020).

Download citation


  • Multiple myeloma
  • Liquid biopsy
  • Biomarkers
  • Precision medicine