Advertisement

Minimal Residual Disease in Indolent Lymphomas: A Critical Assessment

  • Daniele Grimaldi
  • Elisa Genuardi
  • Martina Ferrante
  • Simone Ferrero
  • Marco LadettoEmail author
Lymphoma (DO Persky, Section Editor)
  • 73 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Lymphoma

Opinion statement

Indolent non-Hodgkin lymphomas (iNHL) are a heterogeneous group of pathologies characterized by a prolonged natural history and good response to treatment. They also have a tendency to relapse, in some cases with a worse prognosis. One of the main objectives in the newest clinical trials is to identify patients at high risk of relapse. This cannot be accomplished using only clinical prognostic scores. Detection of minimal residual disease (MRD) is effective in evaluating long-term disease response, with a strong and independent predictive value that was demonstrated in large cohorts of patients. Analysis of MRD allows patient stratification based on the risk for relapse; therefore, different therapeutic programs can be designed based on the response characteristics. This tailored therapy is already happening in current clinical trials. Limits imposed by traditional PCR-based tools are being overcome due to new molecular biology techniques like droplet digital PCR and next generation sequencing. Although these techniques are not yet standardized, they will likely increase the reliability and ensure broad applicability of MRD detection in future years.

Keywords

FL MRD Predictive value ddPCR NGS 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Daniele Grimaldi declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Elisa Genuardi declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Martina Ferrante declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Simone Ferrero has received compensation from Janssen for service as a consultant; compensation from Janssen and Pfizer for participation on advisory boards; and compensation from Janssen, Pfizer, and Gilead for service on speakers’ bureaus.

Marco Ladetto declares, in the past 5 years, the following relationships in terms of consultancy, participation on advisory boards, invitations to scientific meetings, institutional research support, and contracts: AbbVie, Acerta, Amgen, Archigen, Celgene, ADC Therapeutics, Gilead, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, Roche, Roche Diagnostics, Sandoz, and Takeda.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. 1.
    Solal-Celigny P. Follicular lymphoma international prognostic index. Blood. 2004;104:1258–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Massimo F, Bellei M, Marcheselli L, Luminari S, Lopez-Guillermo A, Vitolo U, et al. Follicular lymphoma international prognostic index 2: a new prognostic index for follicular lymphoma developed by the international follicular lymphoma prognostic factor project. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4555–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Casulo C, Byrtek M, Dawson KL, Zhou X, Farber CM, Flowers CR, et al. Early relapse of follicular lymphoma after rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone defines patients at high risk for death: an analysis from the national LymphoCare study. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2516–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nagham NO, Abolela MS, Abdelgawad MI, Ibrahim A, Mourad AF, Rezk K. Diagnostic Utility of 18F-FDG PECT/CT in Assessment of Post-therapy Remission or Relapse of Lymphoma. Cancer Res Treat. 2016;4(5):88–95.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Trotman J, Luminari S, Boussetta S, Versari A, Dupuis J, Tychyj C, et al. Prognostic value of PET-CT after first-line therapy in patients with follicular lymphoma: a pooled analysis of central scan review in three multicentre studies. Lancet Haematol. 2014;1:e17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dupuis J, Berriolo-Riedinger A, Julian A, Brice P, Tychyj-Pinel C, Tilly H. et al. Impact of [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography response evaluation in patients with high-tumor burden follicular lymphoma treated with immunochemotherapy: a prospective study from the Groupe d’Etudes des Lymphomes de l’Adulte and GOELAMS. J Clin Oncol. 2012.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pastore A, Jurinovic V, Kridel R, Hoster E, Staiger A, Szczepanowski M, et al. Integration of gene mutations in risk prognostication for patients receiving first-line immunochemotherapy for follicular lymphoma: a retrospective analysis of a prospective clinical trial and validation in a population-based registry. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:1111–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Huet S, Szafer- Glusman E, Xerri L, Bolen C, Punnoose C, Tonon L, et al. Evaluation of clinicogenetic risk models for outcome of follicular lymphoma patients in the PRIMA trial. Hematol Oncol. 2017;35:96–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huet S, Tesson B, Jais JP, Feldman AL, Magnano L, Thomas E, et al. A gene-expression profiling score for prediction of outcome in patients with follicular lymphoma: a retrospective training and validation analysis in three international cohorts. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:549–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Voena C, Ladetto M, Astolfi M, Provan D, Gribben JD, Boccadoro M, et al. A novel nested-PCR strategy for the detection of rearranged immunoglobulin heavy-chain genes in B cell tumors. Leukemia. 1997;11:1793–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    van der Velden VHJ, Hochhaus A, Cazzaniga G, Szczepanski T, Gabert J, van Dongen JJM. Detection of minimal residual disease in hematologic malignancies by real-time quantitative PCR: principles, approaches, and laboratory aspects. Leukemia. 2003;17:1013–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gribben JG, Freedman AS, Neuberg D, Roy DC, Blake KW, Woo SD, et al. Immunologic purging of marrow assessed by PCR before autologous bone marrow transplantation for B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 1991;325:1525–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gribben JG, Freedman AS, Woo SD, Blake K, Shu RS, et al. All advanced stage non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas with a polymerase chain reaction amplifiable breakpoint of Bcl-2 have residual cells containing the Bcl-2 rearrangement at evaluation and after treatment. Blood. 1991;78:3275–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brown JR, Yang F, Gribben JG, Nueberg D, Fisher DC, Mauch P, et al. Long-term survival after autologous bone marrow transplantation for follicular lymphoma in first remission. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2007;13:1057–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rambaldi A. Monitoring of minimal residual disease after CHOP and rituximab in previously untreated patients with follicular lymphoma. Blood. 2002;99:856–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hirt C, Schüler F, Kiefer T, Schwenke C, Haas A, Niederwieser D, et al. Rapid and sustained clearance of circulating lymphoma cells after chemotherapy plus rituximab: clinical significance of quantitative t(14;18) PCR monitoring in advanced stage follicular lymphoma patients. Br J Haematol. 2008;141:631–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Corradini P, Ladetto M, Zallio F, Astolfi M, Rizzo E, Sametti S, et al. Long-term follow-up of indolent lymphoma patients treated with high-dose sequential chemotherapy and autografting: evidence that durable molecular and clinical remission frequently can be attained only in follicular subtypes. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:1460–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ladetto M. High rate of clinical and molecular remissions in follicular lymphoma patients receiving high-dose sequential chemotherapy and autografting at diagnosis: a multicenter, prospective study by the Gruppo Italiano Trapianto Midollo Osseo (GITMO). Blood. 2002;100:1559–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ladetto M, Vallet S, Benedetti F, Vitolo U, Martelli M, Callea V, et al. Prolonged survival and low incidence of late toxic sequelae in advanced follicular lymphoma treated with a TBI-free autografting program: updated results of the multicenter consecutive GITMO trial. Leukemia. 2006;20:1840–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ladetto M, De Marco F, Benedetti F, Vitolo U, Patti C, Rambaldi A, et al. Prospective, multicenter randomized GITMO/IIL trial comparing intensive (R-HDS) versus conventional (CHOP-R) chemoimmunotherapy in high-risk follicular lymphoma at diagnosis: the superior disease control of R-HDS does not translate into an overall survival advantage. Blood. 2008;111:4004–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goff L, Summers K, Iqbal S, Kuhlmann J, Kunz M, Louton T, et al. Quantitative PCR analysis for Bcl-2/IgH in a phase III study of Yttrium-90 ibritumomab tiuxetan as consolidation of first remission in patients with follicular lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:6094–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    • Ladetto M, Lobetti-Bodoni C, Mantoan B, Ceccarelli M, Boccomini C, Genuardi E, et al. Persistence of minimal residual disease in bone marrow predicts outcome in follicular lymphomas treated with a rituximab-intensive program. Blood. 2013;122:3759–66 MRD was the most powerful and independent predictor of outcome in a phase III prospective trial.. Accumulation of MRD negative values increased the predictive value.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zohren F, Bruns I, Pechtel S, Schroeder T, Fenk R, Czibere A, et al. Prognostic value of circulating Bcl-2/IgH levels in patients with follicular lymphoma receiving first-line immunochemotherapy. Blood. 2015;126:1407–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Galimberti S, Luminari S, Ciabatti E, Grassi S, Guerrini F, Dondi A, et al. Minimal residual disease after conventional treatment significantly impacts on progression-free survival of patients with follicular lymphoma: the FIL FOLL05 trial. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20:6398–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rummel MJ, Niederle N, Maschmeyer G, Banat GA, von Grünhagen U, Losem C, et al. Bendamustine plus rituximab versus CHOP plus rituximab as first-line treatment for patients with indolent and mantle-cell lymphomas: an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2013;381:1203–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Galimberti S, Ciabatti E, Ercolano G, Grassi S, Guerrini F, Cecconi N, et al. The combination of rituximab and bendamustine as first-line treatment is highly effective in the eradicating minimal residual disease in follicular lymphoma: an Italian retrospective study. Front Pharmacol. 2017;8.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pott C, Belada D, Danesi N, Fingerle-Rowson G, Gribben J, Harbron C, et al. Analysis of minimal residual disease in follicular lymphoma patients in Gadolin, a phase III study of obinutuzumab plus bendamustine versus bendamustine in relapsed/refractory indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood. 2015.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    • Pott C, Hoster E, Kehden B, Unterhalt M, Herold M, van der Jagt RH, et al. Minimal residual disease in patients with follicular lymphoma treated with obinutuzumab or rituximab as first-line induction immunochemotherapy and maintenance in the phase 3 GALLIUM study. Blood. 2016;128:613 Preliminary data about a prospective phase III trial suggest that G-based regiment induces rapid and more effective tumor cell clearance than R-containing therapy as first line induction immunochemotherapy in FL.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mandigers C, Meijerink J, Mensink E, Tönnissen E, Hebeda K, Bogman M, et al. Lack of correlation between numbers of circulating t(14;18)- positive cells and response to first-line treatment in follicular lymphoma. Blood. 2001;98:940–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schmitt C, Grundt A, Buchholtz C, Scheuer L, Benner A, Hensel M, et al. One single dose of rituximab added to a standard regimen of CHOP in primary treatment of follicular lymphoma appears to result in a high clearance rate from circulating bcl-2/ IgH positive cells: is the end of molecular monitoring near? Leuk Res. 2006;30:1563–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    van Oers M, Tönnissen E, Van Glabbeke M, Giurgea L, Jansen J, Klasa R, et al. BCL-2/IgH polymerase chain reaction status at the end of induction treatment is not predictive for progression-free survival in relapsed/resistant follicular lymphoma: results of a prospective randomized EORTC 20981 phase III intergroup study. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:2246–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pott C, Brüggemann M, Ritgen M, van der Velden VH, van Dongen JJ, Kneba M. MRD detection in B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas using Ig gene rearrangements and chromosomal translocations as targets for real-time quantitative PCR. Methods Mol Biol. 2013;971:175–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gribben JG, Neuberg D, Freedman AS, Gimmi CD, Pesek KW, et al. Detection by polymerase chain reaction of residual cells with the Bcl-2 translocation is associated with increased risk of relapse after autologous bone marrow transplant for B-cell lymphoma, n.d., 1993 by The American Society of Hematology edition.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ladetto M, Sametti S, Donovan JW, Ferrero D, Astolfi M, Mitterer M, et al. A validated real-time quantitative PCR approach shows a correlation between tumor burden and successful ex vivo purging in follicular lymphoma patients. Exp Hematol. 2001;29:183–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ladetto M, Mantoan B, De Marco F, Drandi D, Aguzzi C, Astolfi M, et al. Cells carrying nonlymphoma-associated bcl-2/IgH rearrangements (NLABR) are phenotypically related to follicular lymphoma and can establish as long-term persisting clonal populations. Exp Hematol. 34(12):1680–6.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Huet S, Sujobert P, Salles G. From genetics to the clinic: a translational perspective on follicular lymphoma. Nat Rev Cancer. 2018;18:224–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Roulland S, Kelly RS, Morgado E, Sungalee S, Solal-Celigny P, Colombat P, et al. t(14;18) Translocation: a predictive blood biomarker for follicular lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(13):1347–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Drandi D, Kubiczkova-Besse L, Ferrero S, Dani N, Passera R, Mantoan B, et al. Minimal residual disease detection by droplet digital PCR in multiple myeloma, mantle cell lymphoma, and follicular lymphoma. J Mol Diagn. 2015;17:652–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cavalli M, De Novi LA, Della Starza I, Cappelli LV, Nunes V, Pulsoni A, et al. Comparative analysis between RQ-PCR and digital droplet PCR of BCL2/IGH gene rearrangement in the peripheral blood and bone marrow of early stage follicular lymphoma. Br J Haematol. 2017;177(4):588–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Drandi D, Genuardi E, Dogliotti I, Ferrante M, Jiménez C, Guerrini F, et al. Highly sensitive MYD88 L265P mutation detection by droplet digital polymerase chain reaction in Waldenström Macroglobulinemia. Haematologica. 2018;103:1029–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Pott C, Knecht H, Herzog A, Genuardi E, Unterhalt M, Mantoan B, et al. Standardized IGH-based next-generation sequencing for MRD detection in follicular lymphoma. ASH annual meeting abstracts. Blood. 2017;130:1491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    • Ladetto M, Bruggemann M, Ferrero S, Pepin F, Drandi D, Monitillo L, et al. Next-generation sequencing and real-time quantitative PCR for minimal residual disease detection in B-cell disorders. Leukemia 2014. 2012a;28(6):1299–307 A straightforward comparison between PCR-based and NGS based methodologies.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Genuardi E, Klous P, Drandi D, Mantoan B, Monitillo L, Daniela B, et al. Targeted locus amplification (TLA): a novel next generation sequencing (NGS) technology to detect new molecular markers and monitoring minimal residual disease (MRD) in mantle cell and follicular lymphoma. Blood. 2017;130:2742.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Steven P, Treon XL, Yang G, Zhou Y, Cao Y, Sheehy P, et al. MYD88 L265P somatic mutation in Waldenström’s Macroglobulinemia. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(9):826–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Xu L, Hunter ZR, Yang G, Zhou Y, Cao Y, Liu X, et al. MYD88 L265P in Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia, immunoglobulin M monoclonal gammopathy, and other B-cell lymphoproliferative disorders using conventional and quantitative allele-specific polymerase chain reaction. Blood. 2013;121(11):2051–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ansell SM, Hodge LS, Secreto FJ, Manske M, Braggio E, Price-Troska T, et al. Activation of TAK1 by MYD88 L265P drives malignant B-cell growth in non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood Cancer J. 2014;4:e183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Varettoni M, Arcaini L, Zibellini S, Boveri E, Rattotti S, Riboni R, et al. Prevalence and clinical significance of the MYD88 (L265P) somatic mutation in Waldenstrom’s Macroglobulinemia and related lymphoid neoplasms. Blood. 2013;121:2522–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Jiménez C, Sebastián E, Chillón MC, Giraldo P, Mariano Hernández J, Escalante F, et al. MYD88 L265P is a marker highly characteristic of, but not restricted to, Waldenström’s Macroglobulinemia. Leukemia. 2013;27:1722–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ngo VN, Young RM, Schmitz R, Jhavar S, Xiao W, Lim K, et al. Oncogenically active MYD88 mutations in human lymphoma. Nature. 2011;470:115–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Landgren O, Staudt L. MYD88 L265P somatic mutation in IgM MGUS. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:2255–6 author reply 2256-2257.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Varettoni M, Zibellini S, Defrancesco I, Ferretti VV, Rizzo E, Malcovati L, et al. Pattern of somatic mutations in patients with Waldenström Macroglobulinemia or IgM monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. Haematologica. 2017;102:2077–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Treon SP, Tripsas CK, Meid K, Kanan S, Sheehy P, Chuma S, et al. Carfilzomib, rituximab, and dexamethasone (CaRD) treatment offers a neuropathy-sparing approach for treating Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia. Blood. 2014;124:503–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Arcaini L, Rossi D, Paulli M. Splenic marginal zone lymphoma: from genetics to management. Blood. 2016;127:2072–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    • Luminari S, Ferrari A, Manni M, Dondi A, Chiarenza A, Merli F, et al. Long-term results of the FOLL05 trial comparing R-CVP versus R-CHOP versus R-FM for the initial treatment of patients with advanced-stage symptomatic follicular lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:689–96 With the aim to maximize treatment activity and increase the chance of durable disease control, R-CHOP should be the preferred option among the other options R-CVP and R-FM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniele Grimaldi
    • 1
  • Elisa Genuardi
    • 1
  • Martina Ferrante
    • 1
  • Simone Ferrero
    • 1
    • 2
  • Marco Ladetto
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Molecular Biotechnologies and Health Sciences - Hematology DivisionUniversity of TurinTurinItaly
  2. 2.Hematology DivisionA.O.U. “City of Health and Science of Turin”TurinItaly
  3. 3.A.O. SS Antonio e Biagio and Cesare ArrigoAlessandriaItaly

Personalised recommendations