Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2017 UpToDate®

Evaluating response to treatment of multiple myeloma

S Vincent Rajkumar, MD
Section Editor
Robert A Kyle, MD
Deputy Editor
Rebecca F Connor, MD


Multiple myeloma (MM) is characterized by the neoplastic proliferation of a single clone of plasma cells producing a monoclonal immunoglobulin. Potential complications include hypercalcemia, renal insufficiency, infection, and skeletal lesions. Once the diagnosis of MM is made and it is determined that the patient requires therapy, treatment options include hematopoietic cell transplantation and chemotherapy.

The International Myeloma Working Group has developed uniform response criteria, which are used to measure the effect of treatment. These criteria are described in detail here. This same group has proposed definitions of survival endpoints (ie, progression-free survival, time to progression, and duration of response) to be used in reporting clinical research. These are also defined here.

Indications for the treatment of MM, risk stratification, and the choice of initial therapy based on this risk stratification and patient characteristics are reviewed separately. (See "Overview of the management of multiple myeloma" and "Selection of initial chemotherapy for symptomatic multiple myeloma" and "Management of multiple myeloma in resource-poor settings".)

The use of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) in myeloma, chemotherapy in patients with relapsed or resistant myeloma, the treatment of complications of MM (eg, hypercalcemia, renal insufficiency, skeletal lesions), and the use of bisphosphonates are also discussed separately. (See "Autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation in multiple myeloma" and "Treatment of relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma" and "Treatment of the complications of multiple myeloma" and "The use of bisphosphonates in patients with multiple myeloma".)


Overview — The International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) uniform response criteria are the preferred criteria to determine the patient's best response to treatment and to define when a relapse has occurred [1-3]. These criteria build upon the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplant (EBMT) response criteria, which were widely used from 1998 until 2006 [4]. In their revision of the EBMT criteria, the IMWG made some clarifications, added new categories of response, and incorporated the free light chain (FLC) assay [1,5]. (See "Recognition of monoclonal proteins", section on 'Serum free light chains'.)


Subscribers log in here

To continue reading this article, you must log in with your personal, hospital, or group practice subscription. For more information or to purchase a personal subscription, click below on the option that best describes you:
Literature review current through: Apr 2017. | This topic last updated: Aug 16, 2016.
The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use ©2017 UpToDate, Inc.
  1. Durie BG, Harousseau JL, Miguel JS, et al. International uniform response criteria for multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2006; 20:1467.
  2. Kyle RA, Rajkumar SV. Criteria for diagnosis, staging, risk stratification and response assessment of multiple myeloma. Leukemia 2009; 23:3.
  3. Kumar S, Paiva B, Anderson KC, et al. International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol 2016; 17:e328.
  4. Bladé J, Samson D, Reece D, et al. Criteria for evaluating disease response and progression in patients with multiple myeloma treated by high-dose therapy and haemopoietic stem cell transplantation. Myeloma Subcommittee of the EBMT. European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplant. Br J Haematol 1998; 102:1115.
  5. Rajkumar SV, Harousseau JL, Durie B, et al. Consensus recommendations for the uniform reporting of clinical trials: report of the International Myeloma Workshop Consensus Panel 1. Blood 2011; 117:4691.
  6. Chee CE, Kumar S, Larson DR, et al. The importance of bone marrow examination in determining complete response to therapy in patients with multiple myeloma. Blood 2009; 114:2617.
  7. Dispenzieri A, Zhang L, Katzmann JA, et al. Appraisal of immunoglobulin free light chain as a marker of response. Blood 2008; 111:4908.
  8. Sawamura M, Murayama K, Tokizawa S, et al. Change of paraprotein from IgG lambda to lambda chain in myeloma. Ann Hematol 1993; 66:215.
  9. Dawson MA, Patil S, Spencer A. Extramedullary relapse of multiple myeloma associated with a shift in secretion from intact immunoglobulin to light chains. Haematologica 2007; 92:143.
  10. Larson D, Kyle RA, Rajkumar SV. Prevalence and monitoring of oligosecretory myeloma. N Engl J Med 2012; 367:580.
  11. Paiva B, Gutiérrez NC, Rosiñol L, et al. High-risk cytogenetics and persistent minimal residual disease by multiparameter flow cytometry predict unsustained complete response after autologous stem cell transplantation in multiple myeloma. Blood 2012; 119:687.
  12. Zamagni E, Patriarca F, Nanni C, et al. Prognostic relevance of 18-F FDG PET/CT in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients treated with up-front autologous transplantation. Blood 2011; 118:5989.
  13. Zamagni E, Nanni C, Mancuso K, et al. PET/CT Improves the Definition of Complete Response and Allows to Detect Otherwise Unidentifiable Skeletal Progression in Multiple Myeloma. Clin Cancer Res 2015; 21:4384.
  14. Puig N, Sarasquete ME, Balanzategui A, et al. Critical evaluation of ASO RQ-PCR for minimal residual disease evaluation in multiple myeloma. A comparative analysis with flow cytometry. Leukemia 2014; 28:391.
  15. Kumar SK, Rajkumar SV. The current status of minimal residual disease assessment in myeloma. Leukemia 2014; 28:239.
  16. Rawstron AC, Child JA, de Tute RM, et al. Minimal residual disease assessed by multiparameter flow cytometry in multiple myeloma: impact on outcome in the Medical Research Council Myeloma IX Study. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31:2540.
  17. Paiva B, Vidriales MB, Cerveró J, et al. Multiparameter flow cytometric remission is the most relevant prognostic factor for multiple myeloma patients who undergo autologous stem cell transplantation. Blood 2008; 112:4017.
  18. Rawstron AC, Gregory WM, de Tute RM, et al. Minimal residual disease in myeloma by flow cytometry: independent prediction of survival benefit per log reduction. Blood 2015; 125:1932.
  19. Paiva B, Cedena MT, Puig N, et al. Minimal residual disease monitoring and immune profiling in multiple myeloma in elderly patients. Blood 2016; 127:3165.
  20. Dimopoulos MA, Sonneveld P, Leung N, et al. International Myeloma Working Group Recommendations for the Diagnosis and Management of Myeloma-Related Renal Impairment. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34:1544.
  21. Dimopoulos MA, Terpos E, Chanan-Khan A, et al. Renal impairment in patients with multiple myeloma: a consensus statement on behalf of the International Myeloma Working Group. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28:4976.
  22. Durie BG, Jacobson J, Barlogie B, Crowley J. Magnitude of response with myeloma frontline therapy does not predict outcome: importance of time to progression in southwest oncology group chemotherapy trials. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22:1857.