Advertisement

International Journal of Hematology

, Volume 109, Issue 4, pp 377–381 | Cite as

Comparison of minimal residual disease detection in multiple myeloma by SRL 8-color single-tube and EuroFlow 8-color 2-tube multiparameter flow cytometry

  • Hiroyuki TakamatsuEmail author
  • Takeshi Yoroidaka
  • Momoko Fujisawa
  • Kazuya Kobori
  • Masako Hanawa
  • Takeshi Yamashita
  • Ryoichi Murata
  • Mikio Ueda
  • Shinji Nakao
  • Kosei Matsue
Rapid Communication

Abstract

We sought to determine the efficacy of a new, inexpensive, single-tube 8-color multiparameter flow cytometry (MFC) method (SRL-Flow), which is based on the EuroFlow next-generation flow (NGF) (tube 2 only), to assess minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative status. MRD-negative status is considered a treatment milestone in multiple myeloma (MM). We used 45 bone marrow samples from patients with MM, including 11 cases treated with anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody. The SRL-Flow sample preparation protocol was identical to that of EuroFlow-NGF. The antibody panel for SRL-Flow was as follows: CD138V450/CD27V500/CD38ME (multiepitope)FITC/CD56PE/CD45PerCP-Cy5.5/CD19PE-Cy7/cytoplasmic (Cy) immunoglobulin (Ig) κAPC/CyIgλAPC-H7. To identify abnormal plasma cells (aPCs) of patients with MM who received anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody, we used a panel of anti-CD45 and anti-CD138 antibodies (Abs) rather than a panel of anti-CD45 and anti-CD38 Abs. We comparatively analyzed the total nucleated cell numbers, total PC levels, and MRD levels between the SRL-Flow and EuroFlow-NGF. High correlations (r > 0.9) in total PC and MRD levels were noted among SRL-Flow, original EuroFlow-NGF (2 tubes), and EuroFlow-NGF (tube 2 only), suggesting that SRL-Flow is an inexpensive (< $200 USD/sample as of January of 2019) alternative to EuroFlow-NGF (< $350 USD/sample) for assessing MRD in MM.

Keywords

Myeloma Minimal residual disease Multiparameter flow cytometry EuroFlow 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge Dr Juan Flores-Montero, Dr Luzalba Sanoja-Flores and Prof Alberto Orfao of Universidad de Salamanca for the EuroFlow-NGF assessments.

Author contributions

HT conceived and designed the study; HT, TY, MF, KK, MH, TY, RM, MU, SN and KM acquired the data; HT, TY, KK, MH, and KM assembled, analyzed and interpreted the data; HT wrote the manuscript; and all authors reviewed the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

H.T. and K.M. received research funding from SRL, Inc. K.K. and M.H. are employees of SRL, Inc. The remaining authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary material

12185_2019_2615_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (9.5 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 9724 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Landgren O, Iskander K. Modern multiple myeloma therapy: deep, sustained treatment response and good clinical outcomes. J Intern Med. 2017;281:365–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Roshal M, Flores-Montero JA, Gao Q, Koeber M, Wardrope J, Durie BGM, et al. MRD detection in multiple myeloma: comparison between MSKCC 10-color single-tube and EuroFlow 8-color 2-tube methods. Blood Adv. 2017;1:728–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Narita K, Kobayashi H, Abe Y, Kitadate H, Takeuchi M, Matsue K. Quantification of bone-marrow plasma cell levels using various International Myeloma Working Group response criteria in patients with multiple myeloma. Int J Hematol. 2018;108:371–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Flores-Montero J, Sanoja-Flores L, Paiva B, Puig N, Garcia-Sanchez O, Bottcher S, et al. Next generation flow for highly sensitive and standardized detection of minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma. Leukemia. 2017;31:2094–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, Palumbo A, Blade J, Merlini G, Mateos MV, et al. International Myeloma Working Group updated criteria for the diagnosis of multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:e538-48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arroz M, Came N, Lin P, Chen W, Yuan C, Lagoo A, et al. Consensus guidelines on plasma cell myeloma minimal residual disease analysis and reporting. Cytometry B Clin Cytom. 2016;90:31–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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;17:e328-e46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Paiva B, van Dongen JJ, Orfao A. New criteria for response assessment: role of minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma. Blood. 2015;125:3059–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Flores-Montero J, de Tute R, Paiva B, Perez JJ, Bottcher S, Wind H, et al. Immunophenotype of normal vs. myeloma plasma cells: toward antibody panel specifications for MRD detection in multiple myeloma. Cytometry B Clin Cytom. 2016;90:61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oberle A, Brandt A, Alawi M, Langebrake C, Janjetovic S, Wolschke C, et al. Long-term CD38 saturation by daratumumab interferes with diagnostic myeloma cell detection. Haematologica. 2017;102:e368-e70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society of Hematology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hiroyuki Takamatsu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Takeshi Yoroidaka
    • 1
  • Momoko Fujisawa
    • 1
  • Kazuya Kobori
    • 2
  • Masako Hanawa
    • 2
  • Takeshi Yamashita
    • 3
  • Ryoichi Murata
    • 3
  • Mikio Ueda
    • 3
  • Shinji Nakao
    • 1
  • Kosei Matsue
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Hematology and Respirology, Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Medical, Pharmaceutical and Health SciencesKanazawa UniversityKanazawaJapan
  2. 2.Cellular Immunology Analysis Section, Genetic and Chromosome Analysis DepartmentSRL, IncTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Division of Internal MedicineKeiju Kanazawa HospitalKanazawaJapan
  4. 4.Department of Hematology/OncologyKameda Medical CenterKamogawaJapan

Personalised recommendations