Tag Archive for: induction chemo

What Is Minimal Residual Testing in Multiple Myeloma?

What is Minimal Residual Testing in Multiple Myeloma? from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

How is minimal residual testing (MRD) used for multiple myeloma patients? Watch as expert Dr. Nina Shah explains the use of MRD testing, and myeloma patient and Empowerment Lead Lisa Hatfield shares her knowledge of MRD testing and how specialists use it in treatment and care.

Download Guide

Descargar Guía

See More from START HERE Myeloma

Related Resources:

Where Should I START Following My Myeloma Diagnosis

Where Should I START Following My Myeloma Diagnosis?

What is a FISH Test

What is Early MGUS

Transcript:

Dr. Nina Shah:

Minimal residual disease is exactly what it sounds like. It’s the disease that you can’t see under the microscope, but it’s still there. And I sort of equate it to the little deep food particles that are in a pot after you clean it and really, really scrub it, but still, something is in there. And that’s what it is for myeloma.

Minimal residual disease testing, or MRD testing, is performed to locate any small number of cancer cells that remain in the cancer patient’s bone marrow during or following treatment. The presence of any remaining cancer cells is the most common cause of relapse in blood cancers, so MRD testing is used to gauge treatment success, to compare different treatments, to detect myeloma recurrence, to monitor patient remission, and to help choose optimal treatments. 

Lisa Hatfield:

So when I was first diagnosed, MRD testing, or minimal residual disease testing, sometimes called measurable residual disease testing, was just, they were looking at having it approved by the FDA for clinical trials only. Still it was only approved for clinical trials as an end point. However, a lot of myeloma specialists are using this MRD testing to help guide decisions. It’s not approved for that yet but to help guide decisions for patients who have a really great response to their induction chemo and stem cell transplant that they may have after induction chemo and after some years of maintenance to see if they can possibly go off of their maintenance therapy. It is occasionally being used, MRD testing, is being used to help guide providers and patients on where to go with treatment. So MRD testing requires a bone marrow biopsy. The most sensitive MRD testing is called clonoSEQ testing, it is NGS testing. It does require the original bone marrow sample, and then they can track that over time each year or however often you have bone marrow biopsies to see if the cloned cells are still there.

So MRD testing right now requires the bone marrow biopsy. I’m hoping that someday it can be done with a blood test, but it’s really important for tracking purposes to see if you’re responding to therapy, to see if you’re staying in remission during maintenance therapy. And it’s even worthwhile too if you’re having toxicities from maintenance therapy to consider going off of that therapy. You can test to see, right now the MRD testing is testing to see if they can find one myeloma cell out of one million cells. So it’s called 10-6 MRD testing. That’s the most sensitive test that’s out there to date and really important if you’re considering possibly going off of maintenance therapy or are having significant toxicities during your treatment.

The Importance of the FLT3 Mutation in AML

The Importance of the FLT3 Mutation In AML from Patient Empowerment Network on Vimeo.

What do acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients need to  know about FLT3 mutation? Dr. Naval Daver from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center discusses considerations about the mutation. Learn about the incidence of the FLT3 mutation, risk of relapse, and treatment options.

[ACT]IVATION TIP from Dr. Daver: “ it is very important to know the status of the FLT3 the mutation, both in diagnosis to see if one would benefit by the addition of the FLT3 inhibitor to the frontline induction chemo as well as in relapse because this would open up the option for FLT3  inhibitor targeted therapies, which would probably have the best chance of response and long-term outcomes. 

Download Resource Guide

Download Resource Guide en español

See More from [ACT]IVATED AML

Related Resources:

What Is FLT3-Mutated Acute Myeloid Leukemia

What Is FLT3-Mutated Acute Myeloid Leukemia?

A Look at Treatment Strategies for High-Risk AML Patients

A Look at Treatment Strategies for High-Risk AML Patients

Challenges in Treating TP53-Mutated AML, Hope on the Horizon

Transcript: 

Art:

Dr. Daver, for AML with a FLT3 mutation, what have we learned, and what is currently being investigated?

Dr. Naval Daver:

AML with the FLT3 mutation is very important from both prognostic and from therapy perspective, prognostically, this is considered to be one of the high-risk mutations, it’s also one of the most frequent mutations in AML in, seen in about 30 to 35 percent of younger and about 15 to 20 percent of older patients with AML, and these patients often have very prolific disease, elevated white count leukocytosis. And without the addition of FLT3 inhibitors, there is a high risk of relapse and a short overall survival. 

Over the last 15 years, a number of targeted therapies called the FLT3 inhibitors have emerged, these started with the first-generation FLT3 inhibitors drugs, such as lestaurtinib and sorafenib (Nexavar), now we have the second-generation FLT3 inhibitors, this includes drugs like gilteritinib (Xospata), quizartinib, and crenolanib which are more potent, specific, and better tolerated.

The first study that showed that the incorporation of FLT3 inhibitors improves outcome was a study called RATIFY Study, this is a frontline study looking at newly diagnosed FLT3 mutated younger patients where we added the FLT3 inhibitor midostaurin (Rydapt or Tauritmo), which is the first-generation FLT3 inhibitor to the standard induction chemo versus a placebo, added to standard induction chemo, induction chemo being standard of care to that time and this showed that in the addition of FLT3 inhibitor to induction chemo did improve remission rates and overall survival as compared to induction, and led to the approval of the FLT3 inhibitor midostaurin in the frontline setting. 

Since then, two other FLT3 inhibitors, second-generation potent FLT3 inhibitors drugs called gilteritinib, and lestaurtinib have also been evaluated. Gilteritinib, in a relapsed setting where single-agent gilteritinib, has given 50 to 60 percent response rates and has been extremely well-tolerated and much better than any other salvage treatment in the FLT3 space that we have ever seen, and in the frontline setting quizartinib and second-generation inhibitor also very recently, just a few months ago, there was data showing the combination of his art with intensive chemotherapy improved survival as compared to intensive chemotherapy alone. 

And so we think we are…they will be a third for the inhibitor to get approved, so there’s been a lot of progress overall in the three space, and there are other newer FLT3 inhibitors also in early clinical investigation that we think could eventually be as part or even better, the activation point related to this question is that, for the inhibitors have dramatically improved outcomes, both in the frontline setting when added to traditional backbone intensive chemotherapy as well as potentially lower intensity therapy, as well as in the relapsed refractory setting, and it is very important to know the status of the FLT3 the mutation, both in diagnosis to see if one would benefit by the addition of the FLT3 inhibitor to the frontline induction chemo as well as in relapse because this would open up the option for FLT3  inhibitor targeted therapies, which would probably have the best chance of response and long-term outcomes. 

Share Your Feedback About [ACT]IVATED AML