Which is the best indicator of improved outcomes in multiple myeloma: sCR, CR, IFCR or MCR?

FAQ Library published on May 10, 2016
Download Transcript Download Audio
Sagar Lonial, MD, FACP
Chair and Professor
Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology
Chief Medical Officer
Winship Cancer Institute
Emory University School of Medicine
Atlanta, Georgia

Managing Myeloma recently talked with Dr. Sagar Lonial of the Emory University School of Medicine about which is the best indicator of improved outcomes in multiple myeloma: SCR, CR, IFCR, or MCR?
[Editor’s note: Dr. Lonial’s transcript has been edited to improve readability]

This is a really important, evolving area in the field of multiple myeloma. We know, for instance, that patients who achieve a Complete Response or CR have improved progression-free and overall survival compared to patients who do not, and in fact, that group includes patients with high-risk myeloma such as 17p deletion, 4;14 translocation, or other karyotypic abnormalities. There is now emerging data suggesting that the Stringent Complete Response (SCR) also offers some benefit; validation in large phase 3 trials is currently ongoing. The two newer categories of flow cytometric complete remission and Molecular Complete Remission (MCR) are currently in evolution, and there is data again suggesting that patients that achieve IFCR or MCR do appear to have better outcomes in terms of progression-free and overall survival. However, we do not know whether those findings are truly predicative or prognostic, in the sense that perhaps we have identified the best patients who achieved molecular or flow cytometric complete remission. As such, while these certainly are important goals of therapy, achieving the deepest response one can, such as using molecular testing, next-generation sequencing, or flow cytometry to assess MRD negativity, it is not clear that one should change therapy at this time based on whether or not a patient has achieved that endpoint. Those trials asking those specific questions are currently ongoing.

Thank you for viewing this activity.

For further information about this important subject, please refer to the related resources and activities on the Managing Myeloma website, as identified below.

Reviewed on January 17, 2017 for clinical relevance.

Last modified: February 8, 2017
Related Items by Author
Practice-changing trials to watch for in 2018
Sagar Lonial, MD, FACP
FAQ Library published on January 24, 2018
A key educational message from ASH 2017
Sagar Lonial, MD, FACP
FAQ Library published on January 12, 2018
Is there a role for Bcl-2 directed treatment for patients with translocation 11;14?
Sagar Lonial, MD, FACP
FAQ Library published on October 11, 2017
How will the new IMWG definition of active multiple myeloma impact clinical practice?
Sagar Lonial, MD, FACP
FAQ Library published on August 18, 2016
How do we determine which patients will benefit the most from treatment with daratumumab and elotuzumab?
Sagar Lonial, MD, FACP
FAQ Library published on July 18, 2016
What is the role of SPEP, UPEP and immunofixation in managing multiple myeloma patients?
Sagar Lonial, MD, FACP
FAQ Library published on July 6, 2016
Is BD or KD a standard of care in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma?
Sagar Lonial, MD, FACP
FAQ Library published on June 15, 2016
What new classes of therapy are emerging for multiple myeloma?
Sagar Lonial, MD, FACP
FAQ Library published on March 10, 2016
How does one define high-risk smoldering or asymptomatic multiple myeloma?
Sagar Lonial, MD, FACP
FAQ Library published on November 6, 2014
What are the mechanisms of renal complications in patients with multiple myeloma?
Sagar Lonial, MD, FACP
FAQ Library published on March 15, 2011 in Comorbidities/SEs