Abstract
Minimal residual disease (MRD) has emerged as a key prognostic factor in multiple myeloma (MM), allowing a more accurate evaluation of treatment efficacy beyond conventional complete remission. High-sensitivity techniques, including next-generation flow cytometry (NGF), next-generation sequencing (NGS), and allele-specific oligonucleotide quantitative PCR, enable detection of residual disease at levels of 10−5–10−6. Achieving MRD negativity is consistently associated with prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) across different disease settings. In 2024, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee unanimously recognized MRD negativity as a primary endpoint in MM clinical trials, reinforcing its role as a validated surrogate of clinical benefit. This review summarizes current MRD detection methods and discusses how MRD assessment, interpreted in the context of recent pivotal clinical trials, may provide a practical framework to guide future treatment strategies in MM.
Introduction
Multiple myeloma (MM) is a biologically heterogeneous plasma cell malignancy characterized by repeated relapses despite substantial therapeutic advances (1–4). Although modern frontline regimens allow complete remission (CR) rates exceeding 70%, residual disease often persists below the limits of conventional response criteria, contributing to disease recurrence (5–7).
The concept of minimal residual disease (MRD) was formally incorporated into the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) response criteria in 2015, recognizing its superior sensitivity and prognostic value compared with standard CR (7). Since then, MRD negativity has emerged as one of the most powerful predictors of long-term outcomes in MM, across both newly diagnosed and relapsed settings (2, 4, 5).
Beyond its established prognostic significance, increasing evidence from recent clinical trials suggests that MRD assessment may offer a practical tool to support future response-adapted treatment strategies in MM (8–14).
MRD detection techniques
MRD can be assessed in the bone marrow using multiparametric techniques or evaluated at the whole-body level through functional imaging (15, 16).
Next-generation flow cytometry (NGF) allows the identification of aberrant plasma cells with sensitivities reaching 10−5–10−6 and does not require a baseline diagnostic sample (15). NGF is widely applicable and standardized through EuroFlow protocols, although its accuracy may be influenced by hemodilution and sampling variability.
Next-generation sequencing (NGS) enables highly sensitive detection of clonal immunoglobulin gene rearrangements, with sensitivities up to 10−6 (16). NGS provides reproducible results across centers but requires a baseline sample and centralized laboratory platforms.
Allele-specific oligonucleotide quantitative PCR (ASO-qPCR) can achieve sensitivities around 10−5 but is technically demanding and has been largely supplanted by NGS in contemporary clinical trials (17).
Extramedullary disease and spatial heterogeneity can be assessed using imaging techniques. Positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) and whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), particularly when including diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), complement bone marrow-based MRD evaluation (18, 19). The combination of molecular and imaging negativity defines the deepest category of response (2).
Clinical relevance of MRD
Across multiple prospective studies and randomized clinical trials, MRD negativity has been consistently associated with improved PFS and OS in both newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory MM (4, 5). This prognostic value is maintained across treatment settings, including transplant-eligible and transplant-ineligible patients (8–14).
Importantly, MRD negativity retains its predictive significance even in patients with high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities, suggesting that deep responses may partially mitigate adverse biological features (2, 3, 20).
MRD kinetics
Beyond single timepoint assessment, MRD kinetics provide additional clinically relevant information. Sustained MRD negativity over time has been associated with the most favorable long-term outcomes. Conversely, persistent MRD positivity identifies patients at increased risk of early progression. Conversion from MRD-negative to MRD-positive status frequently precedes biochemical relapse, potentially allowing earlier therapeutic intervention (2, 21).
MRD-guided treatment strategies: clinical implications
Recent pivotal trials have provided insights into how MRD assessment may inform future treatment strategies.
In transplant-eligible patients, studies such as PERSEUS and MASTER have demonstrated that modern quadruplet induction regimens achieve high rates of MRD negativity (11, 12, 13). In this setting, MRD assessment may help identify patients who derive maximal benefit from consolidation strategies or, conversely, those who may be candidates for simplified maintenance approaches.
In transplant-ineligible patients, trials including MAIA, CEPHEUS, IMROZ, and ISKIA have shown that antibody-based combinations result in deep and durable responses (8–9, 14). In this context, MRD evaluation could support treatment optimization by identifying patients who may benefit from prolonged therapy or intensified approaches.
Following cellular therapies, including CAR-T cells, early MRD negativity has been strongly associated with durable remissions (22). Emerging data also suggest that MRD dynamics may inform the integration and sequencing of novel immunotherapies, such as bispecific antibodies, although further prospective validation is required (23).
Integration of MRD with imaging
Bone marrow MRD assessment alone may underestimate disease burden due to spatial heterogeneity. Functional imaging with PET/CT or whole-body MRI with DWI provides complementary information by detecting focal or extramedullary disease (18, 19, 23). Combined molecular and imaging MRD negativity identifies patients with the deepest responses and the most favorable outcomes (2).
Challenges in clinical implementation
Despite strong evidence supporting its prognostic value, routine MRD testing faces challenges, including assay standardization, access to high-sensitivity technologies, cost considerations, and the lack of universally accepted MRD-driven treatment algorithms (2, 6).
Future perspectives
Ongoing research aims to refine MRD detection techniques, explore non-invasive approaches such as circulating tumor DNA, and prospectively validate MRD-guided treatment strategies. Integrating MRD into risk-adapted, personalized treatment pathways may help optimize long-term disease control while minimizing treatment-related toxicity (2).
Conclusion
MRD assessment has evolved from a research tool to a key component of MM management. Beyond its prognostic significance, MRD evaluation—interpreted in the context of recent clinical trial data—may support future response-adapted therapeutic strategies. Continued efforts toward standardization and clinical integration will be essential to fully realize the potential of MRD-guided care.
Statements
Author contributions
TC: Writing – original draft. AR: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
ChenBPanQDongY. Advancing MRD Detection in Multiple Myeloma: Technologies, Applications, and Future Perspectives. Am J Clin Oncol. (2025) 48:376–380. doi: 10.1097/COC.0000000000001197
2
PaivaBShiQPuigNCedenaMTOrfaoADurieBGMet al. Opportunities and challenges for MRD assessment in the clinical management of multiple myeloma. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. (2025) 22:424–438. doi: 10.1038/s41571-025-01017-x
3
MohtyMAvet-LoiseauHFlorent MalardFHarousseauJL. Potential future direction of measurable residual disease evaluation in multiple myeloma. Blood. (2023) 142:1509–1517. doi: 10.1182/blood.2023020284
4
RajkumarSV. Multiple myeloma: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk-stratification, and management. Am J Hematol. (2024) 99:1802–1824. doi: 10.1002/ajh.27422
5
ShiQPaivaBPedersonLDDimierNTalpesEPriorTJet al. Minimal Residual Disease-Based End Point for Accelerated Assessment of Clinical Trials in Multiple Myeloma: A Pooled Analysis of Individual Patient Data From Multiple Randomized Trials. J Clin Oncol. (2025) 43:1289–1301. doi: 10.1200/JCO-24-02020
6
LandgrenODevlinSM. Minimal Residual Disease as an Early Endpoint for Accelerated Drug Approval in Myeloma: A Roadmap. Blood Cancer Discov. (2025) 6:13–22. doi: 10.1158/2643-3230.BCD-24-0292
7
KumarSPaivaBAndersonKCDurieBLandgrenOMoreauPet al. International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria for response and minimal residual disease assessment in multiple myeloma. Lancet Oncol. (2016) 17:e328–e346. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30206-6
8
FaconTKumarSPlesnerTOrlowskiRZMoreauPBahlisNet al. Daratumumab plus Lenalidomide and Dexamethasone for Untreated Myeloma. N Engl J Med. (2019) 380:2104–2115. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1817249
9
UsmaniSZFaconTHungriaVBahlisNJVennerCP6Marc BraunsteinMet al. Daratumumab plus bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone for transplant-ineligible or transplant-deferred newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: the randomized phase 3 CEPHEUS trial. Nat Med. (2025) 31:1195–1202. doi: 10.1038/s41591-024-03485-7
10
MoreauPAttalMHulinCArnulfBBelhadjKBenboubkerLet al. Bortezomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone with or without daratumumab before and after autologous stem-cell transplantation for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (CASSIOPEIA): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study. Lancet. (2019) 394:29–38. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31240-1
11
SonneveldPDimopoulosMABoccadoroMQuachHHoPJBeksacMet al. Daratumumab, Bortezomib, Lenalidomide, and Dexamethasone for Multiple Myeloma. N Engl J Med. (2024) 390:301–313. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2312054
12
CostaLJChhabraSMedvedovaEDholariaBRSchmidtTMGodbyKNet al. Minimal residual disease response-adapted therapy in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (MASTER): final report of the multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial. Lancet Haematol. (2023) 10:e890–e901. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(23)00236-3
13
GayFRoeloffzenWDimopoulosMARosiñolLvan der KliftMMinaet al. Results of the Phase III Randomized Iskia Trial: Isatuximab‐Carfilzomib‐Lenalidomide‐Dexamethasone vs Carfilzomib‐Lenalidomide‐Dexamethasone as Pre‐Transplant Induction and Post‐Transplant Consolidation in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients. Blood. (2023) 142:4. doi: 10.1182/blood-2023-177546.37410508
14
OcioEMPerrotABoriesPSan-MiguelJFBlauIWKarlinLet al. Efficacy and safety of isatuximab plus bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma ineligible/with no immediate intent for autologous stem cell transplantation. Leukemia. (2023) 37:1521–1529. doi: 10.1038/s41375-023-01936
15
TzastaAWijnandsCBaalmanKvan GoolAJZweegmanSJacobsJFM. Advances in multiple myeloma blood-based monitoring and its clinical applications. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci. (2025) 62:491–509. doi: 10.1080/10408363.2025.2512466
16
Kraeber-BodereFJametBBezziDZamagniEMoreauPNanniC. New Developments in Myeloma Treatment and Response Assessment. J Nucl Med. (2023) 64:1331–1343. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.122.264972
17
PuigNSarasqueteMEBalanzateguiAMartinezJPaivaBGarciaHet al. Critical evaluation of ASO RQ-PCR for minimal residual disease evaluation in multiple myeloma. A comparative analysis with flow cytometry. Leukemia. (2014) 28:391–397. doi: 10.1038/leu.2013.217
18
Rodríguez-LavalVLumbreras-FernándezBAguado-BuenoBGómez-LeónN. Imaging of Multiple Myeloma: Present and Future. J Clin Med. (2024) 13:264. doi: 10.3390/jcm13010264
19
MesguichCHulinCLatrabeVLascauxABordenaveLHindiéE. 18 F-FDG PET/CT and MRI in the Management of Multiple Myeloma: A Comparative Review. Front Nucl Med. (2022) 1:808627. doi: 10.3389/fnume.2021.808627
20
ZamagniEBarbatoBCavoM. How I treat high-risk multiple myeloma. Blood. (2022) 139:2889–2903. doi: 10.1182/blood.2020008733
21
MunshiNCAvet-LoiseauHAndersonKCNeriPPaivaPSamurMet al. A large meta-analysis establishes the role of MRD negativity in long-term survival outcomes in patients with multiple myeloma. Blood Adv. (2020) 4:5988–5999. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2020002827
22
ZabaletaAPuigNCedenaMTOliver-CaldesAPerezJJMorenoCet al. Clinical significance of complete remission and measurable residual disease in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients treated with T-cell redirecting immunotherapy. Am J Hematol. (2024) 100:93–102. doi: 10.1002/ajh.27526
23
ZhuLNawazMAZuoYZengP. Next-generation immunotherapy in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: Strategies to achieve sustained MRD negativity. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. (2025) 214:104913. doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2025
Summary
Keywords
multiple myeloma, minimal residual disease, MRD, progression-free survival, next-generation sequencing, flow cytometry
Citation
Caravita di Toritto T and Rago A (2026) MRD in multiple myeloma: the clinical perspective. Front. Oncol. 15:1740112. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1740112
Received
05 November 2025
Revised
12 December 2025
Accepted
19 December 2025
Published
27 February 2026
Volume
15 - 2025
Edited by
Jelena Bila, University of Belgrade, Serbia
Reviewed by
Stefania Oliva, Molinette Hospital, Italy
Olivera Markovic, University Hospital Medical Center Bezanijska Kosa, Serbia
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Caravita di Toritto and Rago.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Tommaso Caravita di Toritto, tommaso.caravita@aslroma1.it
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.