There is considerable interest in developing techniques to detect and/or quantify remaining leukaemia cells termed measurable or, less precisely, minimal residual disease (MRD) in persons with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) in complete remission defined by cytomorphological criteria. An important reason for AML MRD-testing is the possibility of estimating the likelihood (and timing) of leukaemia relapse. A perfect MRD-test would precisely quantify leukaemia cells biologically able and likely to cause leukaemia relapse within a defined interval. AML is genetically diverse and there is currently no uniform approach to detecting such cells. Several technologies focused on immune phenotype or cytogenetic and/or molecular abnormalities have been developed, each with advantages and disadvantages. Many studies report a positive MRD-test at diverse time points during AML therapy identifies persons with a higher risk of leukaemia relapse compared with those with a negative MRD-test even after adjusting for other prognostic and predictive variables. No MRD-test in AML has perfect sensitivity and specificity for relapse prediction at the cohort- or subject levels and there are substantial rates of false-positive and -negative tests. Despite these limitations, correlations between MRD-test results and relapse risk have generated interest in MRD-test result-directed therapy interventions. However, convincing proof that a specific intervention will reduce relapse risk in persons with a positive MRD-test is lacking and needs testing in randomized trials. Routine clinical use of MRD-testing requires further refinements and standardization/harmonization of assay platforms and results reporting. Such data are needed to determine whether results of MRD-testing can be used as a surrogate end point in AML therapy trials. This could make drug-testing more efficient and accelerate regulatory approvals. Although MRD-testing in AML has advanced substantially, much remains to be done.

Intracellular labels such as dextran coated superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles (SPION), bromodeoxyuridine (BrdU) or green fluorescent protein (GFP) are frequently used to study the fate of transplanted cells by in vivo magnetic resonance imaging or fluorescent microscopy. Bystander uptake of labeled cells by resident tissue macrophages (TM) can confound the interpretation of the presence of intracellular labels especially during direct implantation of cells, which can result in more than 70% cell death. In this study we determined the percentages of TM that took up SPION, BrdU or GFP from labeled bone marrow stromal cells (BMSCs) that were placed into areas of angiogenesis and inflammation in a mouse model known as Matrigel™ plaque perfusion assay. Cells recovered from digested plaques at various time points were analyzed by fluorescence microscopy and flow cytometry. The analysis of harvested plaques revealed 5% of BrdU+, 5–10% of GFP+ and 5–15% of dextran+ macrophages. The transfer of the label was not dependent on cell dose or viability. Collectively, this study suggests that care should be taken to validate donor origin of cells using an independent marker by histology and to assess transplanted cells for TM markers prior to drawing conclusions about the in vivo behavior of transplanted cells.

Treatment of myeloma has benefited from the introduction of more effective and better tolerated agents, improvements in supportive care, better understanding of disease biology, revision of diagnostic criteria, and new sensitive and specific tools for disease prognostication and management. Assessment of minimal residual disease (MRD) in response to therapy is one of these tools, as longer progression-free survival (PFS) is seen consistently among patients who have achieved MRD negativity. Current therapies lead to unprecedented frequency and depth of response, and next-generation flow and sequencing methods to measure MRD in bone marrow are in use and being developed with sensitivities in the range of 10 to 10 cells. These technologies may be combined with functional imaging to detect MRD outside of bone marrow. Moreover, immune profiling methods are being developed to better understand the immune environment in myeloma and response to immunomodulatory agents while methods for molecular profiling of myeloma cells and circulating DNA in blood are also emerging. With the continued development and standardization of these methodologies, MRD has high potential for use in gaining new drug approvals in myeloma. The FDA has outlined two pathways by which MRD could be qualified as a surrogate endpoint for clinical studies directed at obtaining accelerated approval for new myeloma drugs. Most importantly, better understanding of MRD should also contribute to better treatment monitoring. Potentially, MRD status could be used as a prognostic factor for making treatment decisions and for informing timing of therapeutic interventions. .