Minimal Residual Disease (MRD) Detection: A Comprehensive Guide to Technologies, Clinical Applications, and Future Directions

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive overview of Minimal Residual Disease (MRD) detection, a pivotal biomarker for assessing relapse risk and guiding treatment in hematological malignancies and solid tumors. It explores the foundational principles of MRD and its clinical significance in risk stratification and therapy personalization. The review details current and emerging methodological approaches, including next-generation sequencing (NGS), flow cytometry, and liquid biopsy, comparing their sensitivity, specificity, and applicability. It further addresses key challenges in standardization and optimization, presents comparative data on assay performance and clinical validation, and discusses the integration of MRD into clinical trials and routine practice. Aimed at researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, this article synthesizes the latest advancements to inform future biomedical research and clinical strategy.

Understanding MRD: From Basic Concepts to Clinical Imperative

Minimal Residual Disease (MRD), also termed Measurable Residual Disease, refers to the small population of cancer cells that persist in patients after treatment at levels undetectable by conventional morphological methods [1]. These residual cells, often present at frequencies as low as 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 1,000,000 cells, represent a latent reservoir of disease with the biological potential to drive relapse [1] [2]. The detection and characterization of MRD have profound implications for understanding cancer biology, predicting clinical outcomes, and developing more effective therapeutic strategies. This whitepaper provides a comprehensive technical overview of MRD biology, detection methodologies, and its growing role as a surrogate endpoint in clinical trials, framing this discussion within the broader context of cancer research and drug development.

The Biological Basis of Minimal Residual Disease

Definition and Clinical Context

MRD is operationally defined as the presence of residual cancer cells in patients who have achieved complete clinical and hematological remission, typically defined by conventional cytology as having less than 5% blasts in the bone marrow [1] [3]. This population of persistent cells exists along a spectrum of disease burden that can range from negligible levels to as high as 10^9 cells, despite patients showing no overt signs of disease [1]. The concept originated in hematological malignancies but has since proven relevant across solid tumors [1] [4].

The biological significance of MRD lies in its role as the primary reservoir for disease recurrence. These residual cells represent a selection of the original tumor population that has survived initial therapeutic interventions through various mechanisms, including dormancy, adaptive resistance, and protective niche interactions. In Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL), for instance, undetectable MRD is defined as the presence of fewer than 1 CLL cell per 10,000 leukocytes, a threshold far beyond the detection capability of standard cytology which can only detect approximately 1 CLL cell per 100 leukocytes [2].

Pathophysiological Significance

The presence of MRD signifies a fundamental failure of initial therapy to completely eradicate all malignant cells, creating a persistent source for eventual disease progression. Longitudinal studies across multiple cancer types have consistently demonstrated that MRD positivity correlates with significantly higher rates of relapse and poorer overall survival [1] [3]. In Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML), for example, patients with detectable MRD prior to allogeneic stem cell transplantation experience higher post-transplant relapse rates compared to MRD-negative patients [5].

The biological behavior of MRD-containing cells varies considerably across cancer types and individual patients. Some residual cells may remain dormant for extended periods before acquiring additional mutations that drive aggressive recurrence, while others may exhibit slow but continuous expansion. Understanding the cellular dynamics, survival mechanisms, and evolutionary trajectories of these residual populations represents a critical frontier in cancer biology with direct implications for therapeutic development.

Figure 1: The MRD Relapse Pathway. This diagram illustrates the progression from primary therapy to clinical remission, MRD persistence, and eventual disease relapse, highlighting the critical role of residual cells in recurrence.

Current Methodologies for MRD Detection

The accurate detection and quantification of MRD require highly sensitive methodologies capable of identifying rare cell populations amidst normal cellular backgrounds. The major technical platforms each offer distinct advantages, limitations, and appropriate contexts for application.

Comparative Analysis of Detection Methods

Table 1: Technical Comparison of Major MRD Detection Methodologies

Method	Sensitivity	Applicability	Key Advantages	Key Limitations
Flow Cytometry	10⁻³ to 10⁻⁶ (MRD4-MRD5) [2]	Nearly 100% for hematologic malignancies [1]	Rapid turnaround (hours to days); Widely accessible; Lower cost [1] [6]	Limited standardization; Operator-dependent; Phenotype changes may cause escape [1]
qPCR	10⁻⁴ to 10⁻⁶ [1]	40-50% (requires known targets) [1]	High sensitivity for known targets; Standardized protocols; Lower costs [1]	Single target per assay; Cannot detect unexpected mutations [1]
Next-Generation Sequencing	10⁻² to 10⁻⁶ [1]	>95% [1]	Comprehensive mutation profiling; Multiplexing capability; Can track clonal evolution [1] [6]	High cost; Complex data analysis; Not yet standardized [1]
Cytogenetics (Karyotyping/FISH)	5×10⁻² to 10⁻² [1]	~50% [1]	Identifies structural variants; Established standards	Low sensitivity; Requires pre-existing abnormal karyotype [1]

Technical Workflows and Protocols

Next-Generation Sequencing for MRD Detection

NGS-based MRD detection leverages deep sequencing to identify cancer-associated mutations at extremely low variant allele frequencies. A representative protocol for AML detection using circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) illustrates this approach [3]:

Sample Collection and Preparation:

• Collect peripheral blood in cell-free DNA blood collection tubes (e.g., Streck, La Vista, NE, USA)
• Isolate cfDNA using specialized kits (e.g., QIAamp Circulating Nucleic Acid Kit, Qiagen)
• Quantify yield using fluorometric methods (e.g., Qubit Fluorometer)
• Assess quality using QC assays (e.g., PreSeq DNA QC Assay)

Library Preparation and Sequencing:

• Prepare sequencing libraries using targeted panels (e.g., VariantPlex Core AML [10 genes] or Core Myeloid [37 genes], ArcherDx)
• Quantify libraries by qPCR (e.g., NEBNext Library Quant Kit)
• Sequence on NGS platforms (e.g., Illumina MiSeq/NextSeq) with 150bp paired-end reads
• Target minimum read depth: 0.75-3 million reads depending on panel

Bioinformatic Analysis:

• Process sequencing reads through dedicated pipelines (e.g., Archer Analysis v6.0)
• Apply error-correction algorithms to distinguish true mutations from sequencing artifacts
• Manually review mutations previously identified in diagnostic samples
• Filter variants using clinical databases (COSMIC, ClinVar) and computational prediction algorithms (FATHMM, PolyPhen2, PROVEAN, SIFT)
• Report pathogenic/likely pathogenic mutations with variant allele frequencies as low as 0.08% [3]

Figure 2: NGS-based MRD Detection Workflow. This diagram outlines the key steps in cfDNA-based MRD detection, from sample collection to final MRD quantification.

Multicolor Flow Cytometry for MRD Detection

Standardized flow cytometry approaches enable sensitive detection of aberrant immunophenotypes in hematological malignancies. The ERIC (European Research Initiative on CLL) recommended method demonstrates this principle [2]:

Sample Processing:

• Collect peripheral blood or bone marrow in appropriate anticoagulant
• Process using whole-blood lysis method (e.g., ammonium chloride or FACSLyse)
• Stain with standardized antibody panels

Standardized Antibody Panel (ERIC 2016):

• Core markers: CD19, CD20, CD5, CD43, CD79b, CD81 (single-tube, 6-color)
• Optional additional markers: CD22, CD3 for increased accuracy
• Acquisition of sufficient events (typically 1-2 million cells for sensitivity to 0.001%)

Analysis and Gating Strategy:

• Identify leukocyte population by light scatter properties
• Gate on CD19+CD5+ B-cell population
• Assess for aberrant antigen expression patterns characteristic of malignancy
• Quantify aberrant population as percentage of total leukocytes
• Report results with sensitivity to 0.001% (MRD5) [2]

The Researcher's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Technologies

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for MRD Detection

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Research Application
cfDNA Collection Tubes	Cell-free DNA Blood Collection Tubes (Streck)	Stabilizes nucleated blood cells during transport and storage to prevent genomic DNA contamination of plasma [3]
Nucleic Acid Extraction Kits	QIAamp Circulating Nucleic Acid Kit (Qiagen)	Isolves and purifies cell-free DNA from plasma samples with high efficiency and minimal fragmentation [3]
Targeted Sequencing Panels	VariantPlex Core AML/Core Myeloid (ArcherDx)	Enriches for cancer-associated genes relevant to specific malignancies prior to sequencing [3]
Flow Cytometry Antibodies	CD19, CD5, CD20, CD79b, CD81, CD43 conjugates	Identifies aberrant immunophenotypes characteristic of residual disease in hematologic malignancies [2]
Library Quantification Kits	NEBNext Library Quant Kit (NEB)	Accurately quantifies sequencing library concentration to ensure optimal cluster density on sequencing platforms [3]
Bioinformatic Tools	Archer Analysis, FATHMM, PolyPhen2	Processes sequencing data, calls variants, and predicts functional impact of identified mutations [3]

Clinical Applications and Research Implications

MRD as a Predictive Biomarker

The detection of MRD provides powerful prognostic information across multiple cancer types. In AML, studies have demonstrated that NGS-based MRD detection prior to hematopoietic cell transplant better predicts post-transplant relapse and survival compared to traditional flow cytometry [5]. Specifically, patients with persistent FLT3-ITD or NPM1 mutations detected by error-corrected NGS had significantly worse outcomes, with the technology capable of detecting mutations at allele fractions of 0.01% or lower [5].

The predictive value of MRD extends to solid tumors, where circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis enables detection of molecular recurrence months before radiographic evidence of disease [7] [4]. In genitourinary cancers, MRD testing using ctDNA has demonstrated significant potential for predicting recurrence and guiding adjuvant therapy decisions [4]. This early detection window provides critical opportunities for intervention before overt clinical recurrence.

MRD-Guided Treatment Strategies

MRD assessment is increasingly informing therapeutic decision-making in both clinical research and practice. Several paradigms have emerged:

Treatment Intensification: MRD-positive patients may receive more intensive therapies, including allogeneic stem cell transplantation or investigational agents [5]. Studies in AML have shown improved survival with myeloablative conditioning compared to reduced intensity conditioning in young patients with detectable NGS-MRD prior to transplant [5].

Treatment De-escalation: Conversely, MRD-negative status may identify patients who can safely reduce treatment intensity, minimizing toxicity without compromising efficacy [5]. This approach is being formally evaluated in clinical trials across multiple malignancies.

MRD-Directed Therapies: Specific agents, such as blinatumomab in acute lymphoblastic leukemia, have demonstrated exceptional ability to eradicate MRD, functioning as "MRD erasers" that convert MRD-positive to MRD-negative status [5]. Similar approaches are being developed for other malignancies.

Emerging Research Directions

The field of MRD research continues to evolve rapidly, with several promising directions:

Liquid Biopsy Applications: The use of ctDNA for MRD monitoring represents a major advance, particularly for solid tumors where tissue sampling is challenging [8] [4]. Ongoing studies, such as the EORTC 2148 MRD trial in head and neck cancer, are evaluating whether blood-based MRD detection can identify recurrence earlier than standard methods [8].

Artificial Intelligence Integration: AI approaches are being applied to enhance MRD detection, particularly in flow cytometry analysis where they can reduce manual analysis time from minutes to seconds while improving accuracy in complex cases [6]. AI also shows promise for identifying novel biomarkers and refining diagnostic models.

Novel Therapeutic Targets: Understanding the biological mechanisms that enable MRD persistence may reveal new therapeutic vulnerabilities. Research focuses on dormancy mechanisms, immune evasion strategies, and metabolic adaptations of residual cells.

Minimal Residual Disease represents both a biological challenge and clinical opportunity in cancer management. The detection and characterization of these persistent cells provide fundamental insights into cancer biology while offering powerful tools for risk stratification and treatment individualization. As detection technologies continue to advance, particularly with the refinement of NGS approaches and liquid biopsy applications, MRD assessment is poised to become increasingly integrated into both research paradigms and clinical practice. The ongoing development of MRD-directed therapies, coupled with standardized assessment methodologies, promises to translate our growing understanding of residual disease into improved outcomes for cancer patients across diverse malignancies. Future research efforts should focus on validating MRD as a surrogate endpoint in clinical trials, expanding applications to solid tumors, and developing interventions that specifically target the biological properties of persistent residual cells.

Measurable Residual Disease (MRD), previously termed Minimal Residual Disease, represents the small population of malignant cells that persist in patients during or after treatment, undetectable by conventional morphological assessment [9] [10]. In hematologic malignancies, and increasingly in solid tumors, MRD has emerged as the most powerful independent prognostic factor, providing significantly deeper insight into treatment response and relapse risk than traditional complete remission (CR) criteria, which only assess for <5% blasts in the bone marrow [10] [1]. The clinical significance of MRD stems from its ability to identify patients at high risk of relapse based on residual disease burden, enabling risk-adapted treatment strategies. MRD status reflects the cumulative effect of tumor biology and treatment efficacy, with MRD negativity consistently associated with superior survival outcomes across numerous cancer types [9] [10]. This technical guide examines the robust correlation between MRD status and clinical outcomes, detailing the methodologies, evidence, and applications of MRD assessment in modern oncology.

Methodologies for MRD Detection

The accurate detection of MRD requires highly sensitive and specific technologies capable of identifying cancer cells at thresholds as low as 1 in 1,000,000 cells (10⁻⁶), far beyond the capability of morphological microscopy (sensitivity ~5% or 1 in 20 cells) [10] [1].

Table 1: Comparison of Major MRD Detection Technologies

Method	Applicability	Sensitivity	Key Advantages	Key Limitations
Multiparameter Flow Cytometry (MFC)	Nearly 100% for acute leukemia [1]	10⁻³ to 10⁻⁴ (standard); 10⁻⁴ to 10⁻⁶ (NGF) [10] [1]	Fast turnaround (hours); wide applicability; measures protein expression [10]	Requires fresh cells; subjective interpretation; limited standardization [10] [1]
Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS)	>95% [1]	10⁻⁴ to 10⁻⁶ [1] [11]	High sensitivity; comprehensive mutation profiling; objective analysis [10] [11]	High cost; complex data analysis; requires diagnostic sample [10] [1]
Quantitative PCR (qPCR)	40-50% [1]	10⁻⁴ to 10⁻⁶ [1]	Highly sensitive for specific targets; standardized; lower cost [1]	Limited to known targets; cannot detect novel mutations [1]
Digital PCR (dPCR)	Varies by target	~0.001% MAF [12]	Absolute quantification; ultra-sensitive; no standard curves needed [12]	Limited multiplexing; predefined targets only [12]
Next-Generation Flow (NGF)	~99% for multiple myeloma [10]	10⁻⁶ [10]	Fully standardized; high reproducibility; automated analysis [10]	Requires specialized equipment; expertise-dependent [10]

Key Experimental Protocols

Next-Generation Sequencing for Immunoglobulin Rearrangements

The clonoSEQ assay (Adaptive Biotechnologies) exemplifies NGS-based MRD detection for B-cell malignancies [11]. The protocol involves:

• Sample Preparation: Bone marrow aspirates (first pull, <5mL to minimize hemodilution) are collected in EDTA or heparin tubes [10]. For B-ALL, tracking immunoglobulin (IGH, IGK, IGL) rearrangements requires a sensitivity of 1 × 10⁻⁶ [11].

• DNA Extraction and Library Preparation: High-quality DNA is extracted from patient samples. For the initial sequencing, diagnostic samples are used to identify patient-specific clonal rearrangements.

• Multiplex PCR Amplification: Patient-specific primers target the complementary-determining region 3 (CDR3) of immunoglobulin genes, which serves as a unique cellular barcode for the malignant clone.

• Sequencing and Analysis: Deep sequencing is performed on the amplified products. Bioinformatic algorithms quantify the frequency of malignant sequences relative to total nucleated cells.

• MRD Quantification: The final MRD measurement is calculated as the number of cancer-derived molecules per 1 million cell equivalents [13]. MRD negativity is strictly defined as no detectable residual sequences in any trackable clonotype at the assay's sensitivity threshold [11].

Tumor-Informed ctDNA Analysis for Solid Tumors

For solid tumors like NSCLC, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis enables MRD detection [12]:

• Tumor Sequencing: Whole-exome or whole-genome sequencing of tumor tissue identifies patient-specific somatic mutations.

• Custom Panel Design: A personalized multiplex PCR panel is designed to target 16-50 tumor-specific variants.

• Plasma Collection and cfDNA Extraction: Blood is collected in cell-stabilizing tubes, plasma separated, and cell-free DNA extracted.

• Library Preparation and Sequencing: Libraries are prepared using the patient-specific panel and sequenced to high depth (>100,000X coverage).

• Variant Calling and MRD Determination: Automated pipelines detect tumor-derived variants in plasma. MRD positivity is called when ≥2 tumor-informed variants are detected above background noise [12].

Diagram: MRD Detection Method Workflow. The process begins with sample collection and proceeds through specialized pathways for phenotypic (flow cytometry) or genotypic (NGS/PCR) detection.

MRD Correlation with Clinical Outcomes

Hematologic Malignancies

Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL)

In B-cell ALL, achieving early MRD negativity by high-sensitivity NGS is strongly associated with durable remissions, regardless of baseline cytomolecular risk features [11]. A 2025 retrospective study of 161 patients with B-cell ALL using NGS MRD assessment (sensitivity 10⁻⁶) demonstrated:

• Patients achieving early NGS MRD negativity after one induction cycle had 94% 2-year relapse-free survival (RFS) versus 66% for MRD-positive patients (P=0.03) [11].
• None of the 26 patients with early NGS MRD negativity subsequently relapsed during the study period [11].
• For high-risk Philadelphia-chromosome negative ALL patients, early NGS MRD negativity was associated with 100% 2-year RFS, whereas those remaining MRD-positive had only 38% 2-year RFS (P=0.01) [11].

Table 2: MRD Outcomes Across Hematologic Malignancies

Malignancy	Study Details	MRD-Negative Outcome	MRD-Positive Outcome	Reference
B-cell ALL	161 patients, NGS MRD (10⁻⁶)	2-year RFS: 94% (after 1 cycle)	2-year RFS: 66%	[11]
AML (NPM1-mutated)	635 patients, pooled analysis	Significantly superior RFS and OS across thresholds	HR for RFS: 2.98 (PB, ≤0.1 threshold)	[14]
Multiple Myeloma (Newly Diagnosed)	304 patients, NGS MRD	Median PFS: Not Reached	Median PFS: 62 months	[13]
Multiple Myeloma (Relapsed)	178 patients, NGS MRD	Significantly prolonged PFS (p=0.03)	Higher relapse risk	[13]

Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML)

In NPM1-mutated AML, which represents approximately 30% of newly diagnosed cases, MRD status is a powerful predictor of survival outcomes [14]. A 2025 pooled analysis of 635 patients from three large trials (AMLSG 09-09, AML17, AML2003) demonstrated:

• MRD negativity in peripheral blood was more predictive of outcome than bone marrow assessment across all normalized copy number thresholds [14].
• At a threshold of ≤0.1 NPM1m/10⁴ ABL1 copies in peripheral blood, MRD-negative patients in complete remission had significantly better RFS (HR=2.98, 95% CI=2.07-4.27) and OS (HR=2.40, 95% CI=1.53-3.77) compared to MRD-positive patients [14].
• The beneficial effect of MRD negativity on survival was driven by the MRD status rather than the type of hematologic remission (CR vs. CRh/CRi) [14].

Sequential molecular MRD monitoring in younger AML patients (ages 16-60) with NPM1 and FLT3-ITD mutations demonstrated a 47% improvement in the risk of death (HR=0.53, 95% CI=0.31-0.91, P=0.021) in the MRD-monitored cohort compared to non-monitored patients, as physicians could adjust treatment based on MRD results [15].

Multiple Myeloma

In multiple myeloma, MRD negativity has become a surrogate endpoint for survival and a therapeutic objective [13]. A 2024 study of 482 MM patients assessed by NGS of immunoglobulin genes revealed:

• In newly diagnosed MM (n=304), patients who achieved MRD negativity at 10⁻⁶ had significantly prolonged PFS compared to persistently MRD-positive patients (median not reached vs. 62 months, p<0.001, HR 0.52) [13].
• MRD dynamics analyzed by artificial intelligence identified three categories: (A) consistently MRD-negative, (B) continuously declining detectable clones, and (C) increasing or stable clones. Groups A and B had significantly more prolonged PFS than group C (p<10⁻⁷) [13].
• Clonal diversity (number of unique immunoglobulin sequences) complemented MRD assessment in outcome prediction, with higher diversity associated with longer disease control in MRD-positive patients [13].

Solid Tumors

While initially developed for hematologic malignancies, MRD assessment using ctDNA analysis is increasingly applied to solid tumors, particularly non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [12].

• In early-stage NSCLC, ctDNA-based MRD detection can identify molecular recurrence months before radiographic progression [12].
• The 2025 comprehensive review highlighted that ctDNA MRD status after curative-intent treatment strongly correlates with recurrence-free survival [12].
• Tumor-informed approaches (e.g., Signatera, RaDaR) achieve high sensitivity (LoD 0.001-0.02% tumor fraction) by tracking patient-specific mutations identified through prior tumor sequencing [12].

Diagram: MRD Status Directly Influences Clinical Outcomes and Decisions. MRD-negative status correlates with favorable outcomes, while MRD-positive status indicates higher relapse risk and poorer survival, guiding different treatment pathways.

Clinical Applications and Trial Endpoints

Risk Stratification and Treatment Guidance

MRD assessment enables dynamic risk stratification, moving beyond static baseline characteristics to guide treatment personalization [9] [10]:

• Treatment De-escalation: MRD-negative patients may be candidates for reduced therapy intensity or shorter treatment duration to minimize toxicity without compromising efficacy [9].
• Treatment Escalation: MRD positivity identifies patients who may benefit from treatment intensification, including allogeneic stem cell transplantation [11]. In high-risk Ph-negative ALL, alloSCT improved outcomes for patients with suboptimal early MRD dynamics (2-year RFS 80% vs. 0% if no alloSCT; P=0.009) [11].
• Early Intervention: MRD monitoring enables detection of molecular relapse before clinical manifestation, allowing earlier therapeutic intervention [9] [12].

Surrogate Endpoints in Clinical Trials

MRD is increasingly used as a surrogate endpoint in clinical trials to accelerate drug development [16] [10]:

• Between 2014-2021, 28% (55/196) of hematologic malignancy drug applications submitted to the FDA included MRD data [16].
• Of these applications, MRD data was included in the U.S. prescribing information (USPI) for 24 (44%) products [16].
• MRD endpoints can enable smaller, shorter trials when validated as surrogates for long-term survival outcomes [16].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for MRD Detection

Research Tool	Primary Function	Application in MRD Research
xGen cfDNA & FFPE DNA Library Prep Kit	Library preparation from degraded/low-input samples	Enables variant identification from challenging cfDNA and FFPE samples [17]
xGen MRD Hyb Panel	Hybridization capture for target enrichment	Customizable, affordable solution with fast turnaround for MRD target detection [17]
xGen Acute Myeloid Leukemia Cancer Hybridization Panel	Targeted sequencing of AML-related genes	Stocked panel for AML MRD research without requiring tumor-informed approach [17]
clonoSEQ Assay	NGS-based immunoglobulin sequencing	Clinically validated assay for detecting MRD in B-cell malignancies [11] [13]
EuroFlow Consortium Panels	Standardized flow cytometry antibody panels	Multiparameter flow cytometry with standardized methodology and high reproducibility [10]
Unique Molecular Identifiers (UMIs)	Tagging individual molecules to reduce errors	Enhances specificity and accuracy in tumor-naïve ctDNA approaches [12]

The clinical impact of MRD assessment is unequivocal, with extensive evidence demonstrating its robust correlation with relapse risk and survival outcomes across hematologic malignancies and increasingly in solid tumors. MRD status provides a more refined understanding of treatment response than conventional remission criteria, serving as a powerful prognostic biomarker, guide for therapeutic decisions, and surrogate endpoint in clinical trials. As detection technologies continue to advance with NGS, digital PCR, and next-generation flow cytometry achieving sensitivities of 10⁻⁶, the precision of MRD-based risk stratification will further improve. Remaining challenges include standardization across platforms, optimal timing of assessments, and development of targeted therapies for MRD-positive states. Nevertheless, MRD has firmly established itself as a cornerstone of modern cancer management and drug development, enabling more personalized, effective approaches to eradicating residual disease and improving long-term survival.

Measurable residual disease (MRD), historically termed "minimal residual disease," refers to the small population of malignant cells that persist in patients during or after treatment, at levels undetectable by conventional radiographic scans or morphologic assessment of bone marrow [18]. The concept, which originated over 40 years ago in hematologic malignancies, has emerged as a critical tool for detecting and monitoring cancer, with its application now expanding to solid tumors [18] [12]. MRD reflects the cumulative effect of tumor biology and treatment efficacy, offering significantly greater sensitivity for detecting residual disease than traditional methods [18]. The rapid adaptation of MRD monitoring is transforming oncology by enabling earlier detection of treatment failure and creating opportunities for more personalized therapeutic interventions [18] [19].

In clinical practice, MRD status serves as a powerful prognostic biomarker across cancer types. The fundamental principle underpinning MRD utility is that patients who achieve MRD negativity consistently demonstrate superior clinical outcomes compared to those with persistent MRD positivity [18]. For researchers and drug developers, MRD is increasingly serving as an intermediate clinical endpoint in trials, potentially accelerating the development and regulatory approval of novel therapies by providing earlier signals of treatment efficacy than traditional survival endpoints [20] [21]. This technical guide examines the current state of MRD detection and application across hematologic malignancies and solid tumors, with particular emphasis on methodological considerations, clinical validation, and emerging research directions.

MRD Detection Technologies and Methodologies

Core Detection Platforms

MRD detection methodologies vary in their technical approaches, analytical performance characteristics, and applicability across different cancer types. The most established platforms include multiparametric flow cytometry (MFC), polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based methods, and next-generation sequencing (NGS).

Multiparametric Flow Cytometry (MFC) utilizes fluorescently labeled antibodies against specific cell surface and intracellular markers to identify and quantify residual malignant cells based on immunophenotypic profiles. The EuroFlow consortium has established standardized MFC protocols for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and multiple myeloma, with the next-generation flow (NGF) methodology capable of analyzing up to 10^7 cells concurrently with a sensitivity of 2×10^−6 [18] [22]. MFC offers rapid turnaround times and widespread availability but requires fresh samples in many cases and faces challenges with standardization across institutions [18] [21].

PCR-Based Methods, including quantitative PCR (qPCR), reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR), and digital droplet PCR (ddPCR), amplify and detect tumor-specific DNA or RNA sequences. RT-qPCR is particularly valuable in malignancies with defined genetic alterations such as acute promyelocytic leukemia (PML-RARα fusion) and chronic myeloid leukemia (BCR-ABL translocation) [18]. These methods offer high sensitivity (0.001% for ddPCR) and are well-suited for monitoring specific molecular targets but have limited ability to detect emerging clones or multiplex across multiple targets [22] [21].

Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) enables simultaneous analysis of thousands of genes or the entire genome, allowing comprehensive assessment of residual disease. In hematologic malignancies, NGS-based MRD detection monitors clonal immunoglobulin or T-cell receptor gene rearrangements or specific mutational targets [18]. For solid tumors, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis using NGS has become the primary MRD detection modality, with approaches including tumor-informed and tumor-naïve (agnostic) methods [12]. NGS offers broad genomic coverage and the ability to track clonal evolution but involves higher costs and computational complexity [22] [12].

Emerging Platforms and Technological Innovations

The MRD technological landscape continues to evolve with several platforms demonstrating enhanced sensitivity and clinical utility. Tumor-informed approaches such as Signatera (Natera), RaDaR (NeoGenomics), and MRDetect (Veracyte) use patient-specific mutational signatures identified through tumor sequencing to create custom assays for tracking MRD in blood, achieving limits of detection as low as 0.0001% tumor fraction [12]. The recently developed Foresight CLARITY assay reports detection limits below one part per million (0.0001%), demonstrating 68% pre-operative and 38% post-operative MRD detection in stage I lung cancer, with significant association with recurrence-free survival [23].

Tumor-naïve approaches, including Guardant Reveal (Guardant Health) and InVisionFirst-Lung (Inivata), utilize predefined panels of recurrent cancer-associated genomic or epigenomic alterations, offering faster turnaround times and lower costs but potentially reduced sensitivity due to lack of individualization [12]. Emerging methodologies are increasingly incorporating epigenetic markers such as DNA methylation patterns and utilizing phased variant sequencing to distinguish tumor-derived fragments from background noise [12].

Table 1: Comparison of Major MRD Detection Technologies

Technology	Sensitivity Range	Key Advantages	Key Limitations
Multiparametric Flow Cytometry (MFC)	10^-1 to 10^-6 [22]	Rapid results; wide applicability; fresh analysis of cell viability	Requires fresh samples in many cases; limited standardization across labs [21]
Next-Generation Flow (NGF)	2×10^-6 [22]	High standardization; extensive validation in myeloma	Requires immediate sample processing; technical expertise needed [22]
PCR-based Methods (qPCR/RT-PCR)	10^-3 to 10^-6 [22]	High sensitivity for specific targets; well-established in leukemia subtypes	Limited to known targets; cannot detect clonal evolution [21]
Digital Droplet PCR (ddPCR)	0.001% [12]	Absolute quantification; superior sensitivity to traditional PCR	Limited multiplexing capability; higher cost than qPCR [21]
Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS)	0.01% (common) to 0.0001% (advanced) [12]	Broad genomic coverage; ability to track evolution; high multiplexing capability	Higher cost; complex data analysis; longer turnaround times [22]
Tumor-Informed ctDNA Assays	0.0001% tumor fraction [12] [23]	Ultra-high sensitivity; patient-specific monitoring	Requires tumor tissue; longer development time [12]
Tumor-Naïve ctDNA Assays	0.01-0.1% [12]	No tumor tissue required; faster turnaround	Lower sensitivity for heterogeneous tumors [12]

MRD in Hematologic Malignancies

Clinical Utility and Prognostic Value

MRD assessment has become standard practice in many hematologic malignancies, where it provides critical prognostic information and guides therapeutic decisions. The bone marrow microenvironment facilitates direct sampling of disease reservoirs, contributing to the established role of MRD in these cancers [18].

In acute myeloid leukemia (AML), MRD status powerfully predicts outcomes. Patients achieving complete remission (CR) who are MRD-negative demonstrate significantly superior 5-year overall survival (68%) compared to MRD-positive patients (34%) [18]. The 2022 European LeukemiaNet criteria now define the most stringent AML response as "complete remission without MRD," requiring both morphologic remission and absence of detectable disease by sensitive methods [24]. Detection methods include MFC and NGS-based approaches, with PCR-based methods reserved for specific genetic subgroups (e.g., NPM1 mutations) [21].

In acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), MRD positivity represents the strongest predictor of relapse, with meta-analyses demonstrating consistent association between MRD negativity and improved event-free survival (HR 0.23-0.28) and overall survival (HR 0.28) across pediatric and adult populations [18]. The EuroMRD consortium has established standardized molecular MRD quantification guidelines that form the basis for assessment in most non-American clinical trials for ALL [18].

For multiple myeloma, meta-analyses confirm that MRD negativity correlates with superior progression-free survival (HR 0.33) and overall survival (HR 0.45), regardless of sensitivity thresholds, cytogenetic risk, or timing of evaluation [18]. The FDA's Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee recently unanimously supported MRD as a surrogate endpoint for accelerated approval of new myeloma therapies, based on strong individual patient-level associations with survival outcomes [24] [20].

In chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), systematic reviews demonstrate a strong association between MRD status and progression-free survival (HR 0.28), particularly in first-line treatment settings and with time-limited therapy [18]. Achieving undetectable MRD translates to a 72% reduction in the risk of progression or death, with this benefit persisting across treatment strategies and patient populations [18].

Methodological Considerations in Hematologic Malignancies

Standardization of MRD methodologies remains challenging in hematologic malignancies, particularly for AML where comparable harmonization to that achieved in lymphoid malignancies through EuroFlow and EuroMRD consortia represents an unmet need [18]. The technical workflow for MRD assessment typically involves bone marrow aspiration, sample processing, cell isolation or nucleic acid extraction, followed by application of MFC, PCR, or NGS-based detection methods.

Table 2: MRD Clinical Utility Across Hematologic Malignancies

Malignancy	Prognostic Impact	Preferred Methods	Clinical Decision-Making Applications
Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML)	5-year OS: 68% MRD- vs 34% MRD+ [18]	MFC, NGS, PCR (for specific subtypes) [21]	Transplant decision-making; post-transplant monitoring [24]
Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL)	HR for OS: 0.28 with MRD negativity [18]	PCR, NGS, MFC	Treatment intensification/duration; strongest relapse predictor [18]
Multiple Myeloma	PFS HR: 0.33; OS HR: 0.45 with MRD negativity [18]	NGF, NGS	FDA-supported surrogate endpoint; therapy escalation/de-escalation [24] [20]
Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)	PFS HR: 0.28 with MRD negativity [18]	MFC, NGS	Fixed-duration therapy guidance; 72% reduction in progression/death risk [18] [24]
Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia (APL)	Predicts relapse [18]	RT-PCR (PML-RARα)	Therapy guidance; incorporated into ELN guidelines [18]
Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML)	Guides TKI therapy [18]	RT-PCR (BCR-ABL)	TKI switching; treatment-free remission eligibility [18]

Diagram 1: MRD Assessment Workflow in Hematologic Malignancies

MRD in Solid Tumors

Technological Advances and Clinical Validation

The application of MRD detection in solid tumors represents a more recent development, enabled primarily by advances in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis technologies. Unlike hematologic malignancies where direct bone marrow sampling is feasible, solid tumor MRD assessment relies almost exclusively on liquid biopsy approaches to detect ctDNA in blood plasma [12] [19].

The fundamental challenge in solid tumor MRD detection stems from the exceptionally low concentrations of ctDNA in early-stage disease, where it can constitute ≤0.01-0.1% of total cell-free DNA, necessitating extremely sensitive detection methods [12]. Technological innovations including hybrid capture-based NGS, unique molecular identifiers (UMIs), and personalized tumor-informed approaches have progressively improved sensitivity from approximately 0.1% variant allele frequency to current limits below 0.0001% tumor fraction [12] [23].

In non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), MRD detection has demonstrated significant prognostic value. Studies show that post-operative MRD positivity is associated with significantly worse recurrence-free survival (HR 3.14 at post-operative landmark; HR 8.20 at one-year timepoint), with ctDNA-based detection providing a median lead time of 10 months prior to clinical recurrence [23]. The prospective MERMAID-1 trial is currently investigating ctDNA-based treatment adjustments following NSCLC surgery [19].

In colorectal cancer, multiple studies have validated the prognostic significance of MRD status. The DYNAMIC trial demonstrated that MRD-guided adjuvant chemotherapy management in stage II colon cancer could reduce chemotherapy use without compromising recurrence-free survival [19]. The CIRCULATE-Japan study, enrolling over 2,000 colorectal cancer patients, confirmed ctDNA as a strong prognostic factor, while the COBRA/NRG-GI005 phase III trial is evaluating ctDNA-guided adjuvant chemotherapy in stage IIA colon cancer [19].

For breast cancer and head and neck carcinomas, Medicare coverage has been established for specific MRD assays, supporting clinical use in HR+/HER2- breast cancer (monitoring beyond 5 years after diagnosis) and HPV- head and neck carcinoma (adjuvant and recurrence monitoring) [25]. Ongoing studies across multiple solid tumor types continue to validate the association between MRD status and clinical outcomes.

Distinct Methodological Considerations for Solid Tumors

Solid tumor MRD assessment presents unique technical challenges compared to hematologic malignancies, including tumor heterogeneity, variable ctDNA shedding rates, and the absence of standardized sampling timepoints. Two predominant methodological approaches have emerged: tumor-informed and tumor-naïve (agnostic) strategies.

Tumor-informed approaches (e.g., Signatera, RaDaR) require initial tumor tissue sequencing to identify patient-specific mutations, which are then tracked in serial plasma samples using custom-designed PCR or NGS panels. These methods offer higher sensitivity and specificity by focusing on mutations confirmed to be present in the primary tumor, but require available tumor tissue and have longer development times [12].

Tumor-naïve approaches (e.g., Guardant Reveal, InVisionFirst-Lung) utilize fixed panels of recurrently mutated genes or epigenetic markers without prior knowledge of the patient's tumor genome. These offer faster turnaround times and lower costs but may have reduced sensitivity, particularly in tumors with low mutational burden or those lacking common driver mutations [12].

Key considerations in solid tumor MRD assessment include determining optimal sampling timepoints (pre-operative, post-operative, during adjuvant therapy, during surveillance), defining clinical action thresholds, and distinguishing true MRD from clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) which can confound results [12] [19].

Table 3: MRD Detection Approaches in Solid Tumors

Characteristic	Tumor-Informed Approach	Tumor-Naïve Approach
Principle	Patient-specific mutations identified from tumor tissue are tracked in plasma [12]	Fixed panel of cancer-associated mutations or epigenetic markers applied without prior tumor sequencing [12]
Example Platforms	Signatera (Natera), RaDaR (NeoGenomics), MRDetect (Veracyte) [12]	Guardant Reveal (Guardant Health), InVisionFirst-Lung (Inivata) [12]
Sensitivity	Very high (0.0001% tumor fraction) [12] [23]	Moderate (typically 0.01-0.1% tumor fraction) [12]
Tissue Requirement	Requires tumor tissue sample [12]	No tumor tissue required [12]
Turnaround Time	Longer (includes assay development time) [12]	Shorter (ready-to-use panel) [12]
Applicability	High sensitivity for individual patient	Broadly applicable but may miss patient-specific mutations [12]
Cost	Higher	Lower

Diagram 2: MRD Clinical Integration in Solid Tumors

MRD as a Biomarker in Drug Development and Clinical Trials

Surrogate Endpoint Validation

MRD is increasingly utilized as an intermediate clinical endpoint in oncology trials, potentially accelerating drug development by providing earlier efficacy signals than traditional survival endpoints. Regulatory acceptance of MRD as a validated surrogate endpoint requires demonstration of both individual-level and trial-level correlations with clinically meaningful outcomes [20] [21].

In multiple myeloma, the EVIDENCE meta-analysis established that MRD negativity at 12 months post-randomization significantly reduced the risk of progression, with treatment effect on MRD correlating with treatment effect on progression-free survival (trial-level association R² 0.67) [20]. This evidence supported the FDA Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee's unanimous endorsement of MRD as an early endpoint for accelerated approvals in multiple myeloma [20] [21].

Similar initiatives are underway for other hematologic malignancies. The MRD Partnership and Alliance in AML Clinical Treatment (MPAACT) consortium is actively working to establish a pathway for validating MRD as a surrogate endpoint in AML trials [21]. Validation efforts require demonstrating that MRD status captures the net treatment effect on the disease process and that changes in MRD reliably predict ultimate clinical benefit [21].

Clinical Trial Applications

Beyond surrogate endpoint applications, MRD serves multiple functions in contemporary clinical trial design:

• Enrichment strategy: Selecting high-risk MRD-positive patients for interventional trials evaluating novel maintenance or consolidation therapies [19]
• Adaptive trial designs: Using MRD status to guide treatment allocation or duration within trial protocols
• Biomarker-stratified analysis: Evaluating treatment effects within MRD-defined subgroups
• Pharmacodynamic biomarker: Providing early evidence of biological activity for novel agents

Ongoing trials across malignancies are incorporating MRD assessment to guide treatment personalization. Examples include the IMvigor011 trial in bladder cancer, which enrolls only MRD-positive patients post-cystectomy to test adjuvant immunotherapy benefits, and multiple trials in NSCLC evaluating MRD-directed adjuvant therapy [19].

Research Reagent Solutions and Technical Requirements

Implementing MRD detection in research settings requires specific reagents, instrumentation, and computational resources. The following table outlines essential materials and their functions in MRD workflows.

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Platforms for MRD Investigation

Reagent/Platform Category	Specific Examples	Research Function	Technical Considerations
Nucleic Acid Extraction	cfDNA extraction kits (e.g., QIAamp Circulating Nucleic Acid Kit); Bone marrow DNA/RNA extraction kits	Isolation of high-quality nucleic acids from various sample types	Yield and purity critical for downstream sensitivity; inhibitors can affect PCR efficiency [22]
PCR Reagents	dNTPs, Taq polymerase, primers, probes, unique molecular identifiers (UMIs)	Amplification of target sequences for detection and quantification	UMI incorporation reduces errors; assay design must address specificity [12]
Flow Cytometry Reagents	Fluorescently-conjugated antibodies; cell viability dyes; compensation beads	Immunophenotypic detection and quantification of residual malignant cells	Panel design must distinguish malignant from normal cells; extensive validation required [18] [22]
NGS Library Prep	Library preparation kits; hybrid capture probes; target enrichment panels	Preparation of nucleic acids for sequencing	Capture efficiency impacts sensitivity; molecular barcoding essential for error correction [12]
Reference Materials	Cell lines with known mutations; synthetic DNA standards; control samples	Assay validation, calibration, and quality control	Essential for establishing limit of detection and quantification [21]
Bioinformatics Tools	Variant calling algorithms; error correction software; clonal reconstruction tools	Data analysis, variant identification, and quantification	Critical for distinguishing true mutations from technical artifacts [12]

Future Directions and Research Opportunities

The field of MRD detection continues to evolve rapidly, with several promising research directions emerging. Technology development remains focused on enhancing detection sensitivity and specificity, with approaches such as phased variant sequencing, fragmentomics (analysis of ctDNA fragmentation patterns), and epigenetic modifications offering potential improvements [12]. The recent demonstration of detection limits approaching one part per million represents a significant technical achievement, though clinical utility at this extreme sensitivity requires further validation [23].

Clinical trial methodologies are increasingly incorporating MRD assessment in innovative designs. The concept of "MRD-guided therapy" - where treatment decisions are based on MRD status rather than conventional risk stratification - is being tested across multiple malignancies [24] [19]. Key unanswered questions include whether intervention in MRD-positive patients improves survival compared to waiting for clinical relapse, and whether therapy de-escalation in MRD-negative patients can reduce treatment-related toxicity without compromising efficacy [18].

Standardization and harmonization efforts continue through initiatives such as EuroFlow for flow cytometry and EuroMRD for molecular detection in lymphoid malignancies [18]. Comparable standardization in AML and solid tumors represents an important unmet need [18] [12]. Analytical validation standards, proficiency testing programs, and reporting guidelines require further development to support clinical implementation.

Finally, health economic analyses are needed to establish the cost-effectiveness of MRD testing across different healthcare systems and clinical scenarios. The potential for MRD to reduce overtreatment through therapy de-escalation in MRD-negative patients, while targeting more intensive approaches to high-risk MRD-positive patients, represents a promising direction for value-based cancer care [19].

As MRD technologies continue to mature and clinical evidence accumulates, the role of MRD assessment in cancer management is expected to expand beyond prognosis to increasingly guide therapeutic decisions across the cancer care continuum, ultimately contributing to more personalized and effective cancer management.

The terminology used in oncology to describe residual disease after treatment has undergone a significant and deliberate evolution, reflecting critical advances in both detection technology and clinical application. The shift from "minimal residual disease" to "measurable residual disease" (both abbreviated MRD) represents more than mere semantics; it marks a fundamental transition from a theoretical concept to a quantifiable biomarker with direct clinical utility. This linguistic evolution captures the journey of MRD from an inaccessible notion of microscopic disease to a precisely measurable entity that can guide therapeutic decisions, predict patient outcomes, and serve as an endpoint in clinical trials.

The term "minimal residual disease" originally conveyed the presence of small numbers of cancer cells that persisted after apparently successful treatment, remaining undetectable by conventional morphological assessment or standard imaging techniques [19] [9]. This definition emphasized the elusive nature of these residual cells and their position below the detection threshold of traditional methodologies. In hematologic malignancies, this typically meant disease undetectable by microscopy with a sensitivity of 1-5%, while in solid tumors, it referred to cancer cells not visible on CT, MRI, or PET scans [19] [26]. The conceptual limitation of "minimal" was its qualitative nature—it described the presence of residual disease but offered no framework for quantification or standardized measurement.

The transition to "measurable residual disease" signifies a paradigm shift toward quantification and actionability. This terminology emphasizes that modern detection technologies can now precisely quantify these residual cancer cells, transforming MRD from a theoretical risk factor into a actionable biomarker [9] [18]. The updated terminology aligns with the regulatory landscape, where "measurable" denotes a biomarker that can be reliably quantified and potentially validated for clinical decision-making and drug development [27]. This evolution reflects the growing consensus that MRD status—whether positive or negative—provides a powerful prognostic indicator across numerous malignancies, with profound implications for risk stratification, treatment modification, and drug development pathways.

Technical Foundations: Methodologies Enabling Measurement

The terminological evolution from "minimal" to "measurable" has been driven by parallel advances in detection technologies that provide the sensitivity and specificity required for reliable quantification. These methodologies have created the technical foundation that makes precise measurement possible, each with distinct strengths, limitations, and applications across different cancer types.

Detection Platforms and Their Performance Characteristics

Table 1: Comparison of Major MRD Detection Methodologies

Methodology	Sensitivity	Key Targets	Primary Applications	Turnaround Time
Multiparameter Flow Cytometry (MFC)	10-4 to 10-5 (0.01% to 0.001%)	Leukemia-associated immunophenotypes (LAIPs)	AML, ALL, Multiple Myeloma	Hours (rapid)
Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS)	10-6 (0.0001%)	Ig/TCR rearrangements, somatic mutations	ALL, CLL, Multiple Myeloma, Solid Tumors	1-2 weeks
PCR-Based Methods	10-5 (0.001%)	Fusion transcripts (BCR-ABL1, PML-RARα), specific mutations	CML, APL, Ph+ ALL	Days to weeks
ctDNA Sequencing (Solid Tumors)	0.001% to 0.0001% variant allele frequency	Tumor-informed personalized panels or tumor-naïve fixed panels	NSCLC, Colorectal, Breast, Bladder Cancer	1-3 weeks

In hematologic malignancies, next-generation sequencing (NGS) has emerged as a particularly powerful tool, achieving sensitivities of up to 10^-6 (detecting one cancer cell among one million normal cells) through the tracking of immunoglobulin (Ig) and T-cell receptor (TCR) gene rearrangements or specific somatic mutations [26] [18]. The clonoSEQ assay, which employs this approach, has received FDA clearance for MRD detection in B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and multiple myeloma [26]. The critical advantage of NGS lies not only in its exceptional sensitivity but also in its ability to characterize clonal architecture and evolution, providing insights into disease biology that extend beyond mere quantification [26].

For solid tumors, MRD assessment primarily utilizes circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis through liquid biopsy [19] [12]. Two dominant technical approaches have emerged: tumor-informed assays that require prior sequencing of tumor tissue to identify patient-specific mutations for tracking in blood (e.g., Natera's Signatera, Inivata's RaDaR), and tumor-naïve (or tumor-agnostic) assays that use fixed panels of recurrent cancer-associated alterations without requiring tumor tissue (e.g., Guardant Reveal) [12]. Tumor-informed methods generally offer higher sensitivity and specificity, as they focus tracking on mutations definitively identified in the patient's tumor, thereby reducing false positives from clonal hematopoiesis [12]. The sensitivity of these ctDNA-based assays has reached remarkable levels, with some platforms like Foundation Medicine's Tissue-informed WGS MRD test detecting tumor DNA at concentrations as low as 1 part per 100,000 (0.001%) [28].

Experimental Workflows and Protocol Specifications

The experimental workflow for MRD assessment varies significantly between hematological malignancies and solid tumors, reflecting their different biological contexts and available sample types.

Table 2: Comparative MRD Detection Workflows

Workflow Step	Hematologic Malignancies	Solid Tumors
Sample Type	Bone marrow aspirate (primary) or peripheral blood	Peripheral blood (plasma)
Sample Processing	Density gradient centrifugation, cell staining (for MFC)	Plasma separation via centrifugation, cell-free DNA extraction
Target Identification	Ig/TCR rearrangements (NGS), LAIPs (MFC), fusion transcripts (PCR)	Somatic mutations from tumor tissue (tumor-informed) or fixed panels (tumor-naïve)
Analysis Phase	NGS library preparation, sequencing (NGS); Cell analysis (MFC); Amplification (PCR)	Library preparation, targeted sequencing, bioinformatic analysis
Data Interpretation	Comparison to diagnostic sample, threshold application	Variant calling, tumor fraction calculation, threshold application

For hematologic malignancies, the gold standard sample remains the bone marrow aspirate, particularly for diseases like AML, ALL, and multiple myeloma, where the marrow represents the primary disease site [18]. Protocols typically require adequate cellularity (≥2-3×10⁶ nucleated cells for NGS) to achieve the desired sensitivity [18]. For NGS-based methods, the initial step involves identifying clonal Ig/TCR rearrangements or specific mutations at diagnosis, which then serve as templates for designing patient-specific tracking assays during follow-up [26]. For multiparameter flow cytometry, the approach relies on identifying leukemia-associated immunophenotypes (LAIPs) at diagnosis—specific combinations of surface and intracellular markers that distinguish malignant cells from their normal counterparts [26] [18].

In solid tumors, the standard protocol involves collecting peripheral blood in specialized tubes that preserve cell-free DNA (e.g., Streck Cell-Free DNA BCT), followed by plasma separation through centrifugation, DNA extraction, and library preparation [12]. For tumor-informed approaches, the process begins with whole-exome or whole-genome sequencing of tumor tissue (typically FFPE samples) to identify somatic mutations, followed by the design of a custom panel targeting 16-50 patient-specific variants [12]. This personalized panel is then used to probe cell-free DNA from plasma samples. Tumor-naïve approaches streamline this process by skipping the tumor sequencing step and instead using fixed panels of several hundred cancer-associated genes, making them faster and more convenient but potentially less sensitive for individual patients [12].

Clinical Validation: Quantitative Evidence Supporting the Terminology Shift

The transition from "minimal" to "measurable" is substantiated by robust clinical evidence demonstrating that MRD status consistently predicts patient outcomes across diverse malignancies. The quantifiable nature of MRD detection allows for precise correlation between biomarker status and survival endpoints, providing the evidence base necessary for clinical adoption.

Prognostic Impact Across Malignancies

Table 3: MRD Status and Survival Outcomes Across Cancer Types

Cancer Type	MRD-Negative Survival	MRD-Positive Survival	Hazard Ratio (95% CI)
Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML)	5-year OS: 68%	5-year OS: 34%	Not reported
Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL)	5-year DFS: 64%	5-year DFS: 25%	EFS HR: 0.23-0.28
Multiple Myeloma	Superior PFS and OS	Inferior PFS and OS	PFS HR: 0.33 (0.29-0.37)
Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)	Improved PFS	Reduced PFS	PFS HR: 0.28 (0.20-0.39)

In acute myeloid leukemia, the stark contrast in outcomes between MRD-negative and MRD-positive patients underscores the clinical significance of this biomarker. A systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that adult and pediatric AML patients who achieved complete remission but remained MRD-positive experienced a 5-year overall survival of just 34%, compared to 68% for those who attained MRD negativity [18]. This dramatic difference highlights how MRD status refines traditional response assessment, identifying patients who appear to be in remission by conventional morphology but harbor residual disease that will likely lead to relapse.

The prognostic power of MRD extends throughout the leukemias, with similar patterns observed in acute lymphoblastic leukemia, where MRD positivity represents the strongest predictor of relapse [26] [18]. A comprehensive meta-analysis of 39 studies encompassing over 13,000 patients established consistent associations between MRD negativity and improved event-free survival in both pediatric (HR 0.23) and adult (HR 0.28) populations [18]. The timing of MRD clearance further enhances its predictive value, with patients achieving early MRD negativity (within 1.5 months of therapy) demonstrating remarkable 100% two-year relapse-free survival compared to just 38% for those remaining MRD positive in high-risk Philadelphia-negative ALL [26].

In multiple myeloma, MRD status has emerged as one of the most important dynamic prognostic markers, leading the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee to recommend acceptance of MRD as an endpoint for accelerated drug approval by the FDA [29]. This endorsement reflects robust evidence demonstrating that MRD negativity correlates with superior progression-free survival (HR 0.33) and overall survival (HR 0.45), regardless of sensitivity thresholds, cytogenetic risk, or timing of evaluation [18] [29]. The quantitative nature of MRD assessment is particularly valuable in multiple myeloma, where it provides a direct estimation of tumor burden (clonal plasma cells) that surpasses the limitations of traditional paraprotein measurements [29].

MRD as a Surrogate Endpoint in Clinical Trials

The maturation of MRD as a quantitative biomarker is perhaps most evident in its evolving role in clinical trial design and drug development. In acute myeloid leukemia, the MRD Partnership and Alliance in AML Clinical Treatment (MPAACT) consortium is actively engaging with regulatory agencies to establish a pathway for validating MRD as a surrogate endpoint in clinical trials [27]. This initiative recognizes that MRD status provides a sensitive and quantitative assessment of disease burden that could potentially accelerate the approval of novel therapies by serving as an early indicator of treatment efficacy [27].

The potential of MRD to function as a surrogate endpoint is supported by its strong correlation with clinically meaningful outcomes like overall survival across multiple hematologic malignancies [27] [18]. In the solid tumor arena, ongoing trials like MERMAID-1 in non-small cell lung cancer and IMvigor011 in bladder cancer are investigating ctDNA-based treatment adjustments in the post-operative setting, building evidence for MRD as a decision-making tool [19]. These studies exemplify how the "measurability" of residual disease is creating new paradigms for clinical trial design and therapeutic development.

The Research Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Platforms

The implementation of MRD detection in both clinical research and diagnostic settings relies on a sophisticated ecosystem of reagents, instruments, and analytical platforms. This toolkit continues to evolve, with innovations enhancing sensitivity, standardization, and accessibility.

Table 4: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for MRD Detection

Reagent/Platform	Function	Application Context
EuroFlow Antibody Panels	Standardized 8-color antibody panels for multiparameter flow cytometry	MRD detection in ALL, CLL, Multiple Myeloma
Unique Molecular Identifiers (UMIs)	DNA barcodes that tag individual molecules to correct for PCR errors and duplicates	Enhancing accuracy in NGS-based MRD detection
Hybrid Capture Probes	Oligonucleotide baits for targeted enrichment of genomic regions of interest	Tumor-naïve ctDNA MRD assays (e.g., Guardant Reveal)
Pre-amplification Enzymes	High-fidelity polymerases for limited template amplification	Maintaining sequence accuracy in low-ctDNA scenarios
Bioinformatic Pipelines	Computational algorithms for variant calling and background noise reduction	PhasED-Seq, CAPP-Seq, and other ultra-sensitive platforms

The EuroFlow Consortium has significantly advanced standardization in MRD detection for hematologic malignancies through the development of standardized 8-color antibody panels and sample preparation protocols [18]. These reagents have improved inter-laboratory consistency and enabled more reliable comparison of results across clinical trials. The EuroFlow approach for multiple myeloma is now regarded as the multiparameter flow cytometry gold standard for MRD assessment according to International Myeloma Working Group guidelines [18].

For ctDNA-based MRD detection in solid tumors, unique molecular identifiers have become a critical technical component. These short DNA sequences are attached to individual DNA molecules before amplification, allowing bioinformatic correction of PCR errors and elimination of duplicates that arise from amplification bias [12]. This technology is particularly important for tumor-naïve approaches, which require enhanced specificity to distinguish true tumor-derived variants from background noise in fixed panels [12].

Emerging platforms are pushing the sensitivity boundaries even further through advanced computational methods. Approaches like PhasED-Seq leverage phased variants to achieve sensitivity below 0.0001% tumor fraction, while whole genome sequencing-based tumor-informed platforms like MRDetect and C2i Genomics utilize AI-based algorithms to enhance detection capabilities [12]. These innovations demonstrate how the research toolkit continues to evolve, enabling increasingly precise measurement of residual disease.

Visualizing Methodological Approaches

The following diagram illustrates the two primary methodological approaches for MRD detection in solid tumors, highlighting their distinct workflows, strengths, and limitations:

The evolution in terminology from "minimal" to "measurable" residual disease represents far more than linguistic precision—it marks a fundamental shift in how the oncology community conceptualizes, quantifies, and utilizes residual disease following cancer treatment. This transition reflects three critical developments: technological advances that enable precise quantification of disease burden at unprecedented sensitivity levels; clinical validation demonstrating consistent correlations between MRD status and patient outcomes across diverse malignancies; and regulatory recognition of MRD as a potential surrogate endpoint and decision-making tool.

For researchers and drug development professionals, this evolution creates new paradigms for clinical trial design, with MRD serving as an early endpoint that may accelerate therapeutic development [27]. The standardization of detection methodologies remains a pressing challenge, particularly in malignancies like AML where consensus on optimal approaches is still emerging [18]. Nevertheless, the established prognostic significance of MRD across hematologic malignancies and its growing validation in solid tumors positions this biomarker as a transformative tool in precision oncology.

As the field advances, key questions warrant continued investigation: Does intervention in MRD-positive patients consistently improve survival compared to waiting for clinical relapse? Can MRD-guided therapy de-escalation safely reduce treatment-related toxicity without compromising efficacy? How can technological innovations further enhance sensitivity while maintaining specificity and accessibility? The resolution of these questions will shape the next chapter in the evolving story of measurable residual disease, solidifying its role as a cornerstone of cancer management in the precision medicine era.

MRD Detection Technologies: From Established Workhorses to Novel Platforms

Multiparameter Flow Cytometry (MFC) has become an indispensable tool in the detection of Measurable Residual Disease (MRD) in hematologic malignancies, providing critical prognostic information that guides clinical decision-making. MRD refers to the persistence of leukemic cells after treatment at levels undetectable by conventional morphological examination [30]. The significance of MFC-MRD lies in its ability to detect as few as one leukemic cell in 10,000 normal cells, offering a powerful independent prognostic biomarker for predicting relapse in conditions like Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) and Multiple Myeloma (MM) [30] [31]. MFC achieves this sensitivity through the simultaneous analysis of multiple cellular parameters, typically using 4-6 color instruments in clinical settings, with research instruments capable of analyzing 40 or more parameters [32]. The technique's wide applicability (>90% of AML patients), rapid turnaround time, and cost-effectiveness make it particularly valuable for monitoring treatment response, especially when compared to molecular techniques that require specific genetic markers and are applicable to only 40-60% of patients [30].

Core Methodological Approaches: LAIP and DfN

Leukemia-Associated Immunophenotypes (LAIP) Approach

The LAIP approach involves identifying a patient-specific aberrant immunophenotype at diagnosis and tracking this same phenotype during follow-up to detect residual disease [30] [33]. LAIPs are characterized by one or more of the following features: (1) asynchronous antigenic expression of immaturity/maturity biomarkers, such as co-expression of CD34/CD117 with CD15 or CD11b; (2) aberrant lineage antigen expression, particularly lymphoid antigens on myeloid cells including CD19, CD7, CD4, CD25, CD2, and CD56; and (3) overexpression, reduced expression, or complete loss of antigens such as CD123, CD33, CD13, and HLA-DR [30]. The robustness of a LAIP for MRD tracking depends on three critical factors: the specificity of the antigen combination and its rare presence in normal or regenerating bone marrow cells; the sensitivity in terms of the proportion of AML cells exhibiting the LAIP at diagnosis; and the stability of the LAIP throughout the disease course, considering potential immunophenotypic shifts under therapeutic pressure [30].

Different-from-Normal (DfN) Approach

The DfN approach, in contrast, focuses on identifying aberrant antigen expression patterns not found in normal hematopoietic stem cells during follow-up, without strict reliance on the diagnostic immunophenotype [30]. This method can detect emerging LAIPs that might not have been present or identified at diagnosis, providing flexibility in monitoring disease evolution. However, this approach carries the risk of identifying aberrations that may not be disease-specific but rather represent minute populations present in healthy or regenerating bone marrow, potentially leading to false-positive results [30]. The DfN approach is particularly valuable in cases where no suitable LAIP is identified at diagnosis or when immunophenotypic shifts occur during treatment.

Integrated LAIP-based DfN Methodology

Current European LeukemiaNet (ELN) recommendations advocate for a combined approach that integrates both LAIP and DfN methodologies to leverage the advantages of both techniques [30]. This integrated strategy forms the basis of the LAIP-based DfN method, wherein cells positive for LAIP-specific aberrant lineage markers are specifically selected during follow-up analysis. A recent validation study demonstrated that this combined approach improves MFC-MRD accuracy and comparability with molecular MRD assessment, particularly in addressing the challenge posed by partial LAIP expression at diagnosis [30]. In cases where the most specific LAIPs, such as aberrant lineage markers, are only partially expressed by the leukemic clone, selecting only cells positive for these aberrant antigens might exclude part of the residual leukemic clone that appears phenotypically normal, highlighting the critical importance of an optimized gating strategy.

Figure 1: Methodological workflow comparing LAIP, DfN, and integrated approaches for MFC-MRD detection

Standardized Protocols and Technical Considerations

Sample Preparation and Handling

Proper sample preparation is fundamental to successful MFC-MRD analysis, as data quality is heavily dependent on sample integrity. Bone marrow samples must be processed as fresh specimens, ideally within 24-36 hours of collection, to preserve cell viability and immunophenotypic integrity [31]. The preparation of single-cell suspensions requires careful attention to eliminate debris and cell clumping, often involving red blood cell lysis reagents, proteases for cell isolation, filtration approaches to ensure single-cell suspensions, and appropriate fixatives when necessary [34]. The inclusion of viability probes is essential, as dead cells exhibit non-specific antibody binding and distinct autofluorescent profiles that can compromise data interpretation [35] [32]. For intracellular antigen detection, such as in Multiple Myeloma plasma cell analysis, proper permeabilization reagents and procedures must be implemented [34].

Antibody Panel Design and Fluorophore Selection

Effective panel design requires strategic matching of antigen abundance with fluorophore brightness, where low-density markers should be labeled with bright fluorochromes [35] [32]. The complexity increases with polychromatic panels, necessitating careful selection of fluorophore combinations to minimize spectral overlap. As highlighted in the search results, "avoid combinations of markers conjugated to fluorophores with heavy spectral overlap that co-express on the same cell" [35]. The complexity index, which quantifies the total spectral overlap of all marker/fluorophore combinations in an assay, serves as a practical tool for researchers to gauge the consequences of different fluorophore choices [35]. Spectral flow cytometry has expanded compatibility for fluorophore combinations previously difficult to separate on conventional instruments, such as PerCP and PerCP-eFluor 710, or APC and Alexa Fluor 647, by leveraging their unique spectral signatures across multiple detectors [36].

Instrument Setup and Quality Control

Rigorous quality control procedures are essential for reliable MFC-MRD results. Modern flow cytometers require daily performance monitoring using fluorescent particles with known properties to ensure consistent laser alignment, fluidics, and detector sensitivity [32]. The practice of "voltration" - establishing optimal voltage ranges for instrument detectors - is highly recommended to maintain consistent performance [32]. Proper compensation is critical when using multiple fluorochromes, as uncompensated or improperly compensated samples result in measurement artifacts and inaccurate quantification of antigen density [34]. For spectral flow cytometry, individual fluorescent reference controls are necessary to deconvolute or "unmix" the spectral signatures in polychromatic panels [36]. Additionally, adequate event acquisition is crucial, with recent studies acquiring 500,000 to one million cells per tube to achieve sufficient sensitivity for rare event detection [33].

Table 1: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for MFC-MRD Analysis

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function and Application	Technical Considerations
Viability Probes	Propidium iodide, amine-reactive live/dead stains [34] [35]	Exclusion of dead cells to reduce non-specific binding and autofluorescence	Must be used prior to fixation; consider spectral compatibility with other fluorochromes
Blocking Buffers	Fc receptor blockers, Brilliant Stain Buffer, monocyte blockers [35]	Reduce non-specific antibody binding and polymer dye interactions	Brilliant Stain Buffer must be present before creating antibody cocktail; monocyte blocker applied before staining
Fluorophore Conjugates	Brilliant Violet series, Super Bright polymers, Alexa Fluor dyes, Qdot nanocrystals [36] [35]	Enable multiplexed detection of multiple cellular markers	Match fluorophore brightness to antigen density; consider spillover spreading error
Compensation Controls	Antibody capture beads, unstained cells, single-color stained controls [34] [32]	Correct for spectral overlap between fluorochromes	Must be processed identically to experimental samples; essential for both conventional and spectral cytometry
Reference Standards	Fluorescent particles with known properties [32]	Daily quality control and instrument performance tracking	Monitor laser power, detector sensitivity, and fluidic stability

Data Acquisition and Analysis Framework

Data acquisition for MRD detection requires careful setup to ensure statistical significance. The number of events collected must be sufficient to detect rare populations, with recent multicenter studies acquiring at least 500,000 to one million cells per tube to achieve sensitivity thresholds of 0.01% or lower [33]. During analysis, a sequential gating strategy is employed, beginning with light scatter gates to exclude debris, followed by doublet discrimination gates, live-dead gates using viability markers, and finally fluorescence-detecting gates specific to the cell population of interest [34] [37]. The method used to define gate thresholds should be clearly stated, whether using unstained controls, biological controls, isotype controls, or fluorescence-minus-one (FMO) controls [34] [32]. For high-dimensional data analysis, unsupervised computational approaches and machine learning algorithms are increasingly employed to overcome limitations of manual gating, including inter-operator variability and the complexity of analyzing data from next-generation cytometry platforms [38].

Clinical Validation and Prognostic Significance

Methodological Comparisons and Validation Studies

Recent validation studies have directly compared the performance of different MFC-MRD approaches against molecular standards. A 2025 study focusing on NPM1-mutated AML demonstrated that the LAIP-based DfN method significantly improves the accuracy and comparability with RT-qPCR for NPM1 mutation detection compared to the traditional LAIP method alone [30]. This research addressed the critical challenge of partial LAIP expression, where the most specific aberrations are often only partially expressed by the leukemic clone at diagnosis. Through receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, the study identified distinct MRD cut-off values: 0.034% for patients receiving intensive chemotherapy and 0.095% for those receiving hypomethylating agents, highlighting the importance of therapy-specific thresholds [30]. Furthermore, the study revealed varying accuracy degrees based on the specific LAIP markers used for MRD assessment, underscoring that not all LAIPs exhibit equivalent reliability for disease monitoring.

Integration with Leukemic Stem Cell Monitoring

The prognostic power of MFC-MRD can be enhanced through simultaneous detection of leukemic stem cells (LSCs). A recent multicenter study from the French Acute Leukemia French Intergroup MRD Flow Network demonstrated that combining LAIP/DfN assessment with CD34+CD38- LSC monitoring provides superior prognostic stratification [33]. This research established distinct cutoff values for each compartment: 0.1% of CD45+ bone marrow cells for the LAIP/DfN component and 0.01% for the LSC component [33]. The study implemented a scoring system that classified patients into four prognostic subgroups based on their LAIP/DfN and LSC MRD status, with significantly different 3-year overall survival estimates: 78% for double-negative, 68% for LAIP/DfN-positive only, 71% for LSC-positive only, and 30% for double-positive patients at the post-induction timepoint [33]. This combined approach maintained predictive value independently of the ELN-2022 genetic risk stratification.

Table 2: Clinically Validated Cut-off Values for MFC-MRD in AML

Assessment Method	Clinical Context	Recommended Cut-off	Prognostic Significance	Study Reference
LAIP-based DfN	Post-intensive chemotherapy	0.034%	Discriminates positive/negative results with high accuracy against NPM1-mutated MRD	[30]
LAIP-based DfN	Post-hypomethylating agents	0.095%	Therapy-specific threshold for patients receiving venetoclax+HMA	[30]
LAIP/DfN	Post-induction therapy	0.1% (of CD45+ BM cells)	3-year OS: 50% vs 75% (positive vs negative)	[33]
LSC Monitoring	Post-induction therapy	0.01% (of CD45+ BM cells)	3-year OS: 47% vs 77% (positive vs negative)	[33]
Combined Score	Post-consolidation therapy	LAIP/DfN: 0.1%, LSC: 0.01%	3-year OS: 82% (-/-), 70% (+/-), 75% (-/+), 27% (+/+)	[33]

Standardization Initiatives and Multicenter Applications

Significant efforts have been made to standardize MFC-MRD protocols across multiple centers to ensure reproducible and comparable results. The EuroFlow Consortium has developed Next Generation Flow (NGF) methodologies that employ standardized protocols for sample preparation, antibody panel construction, and data acquisition [31]. In Multiple Myeloma, the EuroFlow consortium recommends a two-tube, eight-color combination to identify both surface and intracellular markers for characterizing neoplastic plasma cells [31]. Similarly, the Acute Leukemia French Intergroup MRD Flow Network implemented a standardized multicentric approach across 30 laboratories using common panels, flow cytometer settings, and analysis strategies [33]. These standardization initiatives include quality assurance programs and centralized data review to minimize inter-laboratory variability, which has been shown to result in up to 100-fold differences in assay sensitivity when non-standardized approaches are used [31].

Figure 2: Prognostic stratification using combined LAIP/DfN and LSC assessment in AML

Emerging Innovations and Future Directions

Computational Approaches and Machine Learning

The field of MFC-MRD is rapidly evolving with the integration of computational approaches and machine learning algorithms to address limitations of conventional manual analysis. As noted in recent literature, "MRD levels quantified by manual gating analysis can differ based on differences in gating strategy between trained operators and clinical centers" [38]. Manual gating requires extensive training, is time-consuming in daily practice, and faces significant challenges in analyzing data from next-generation cytometry platforms [38]. Computational approaches offer unique opportunities to standardize or even outperform current manual gating analyses through automated population identification and dimensionality reduction techniques. These methods are particularly valuable for analyzing high-dimensional data where traditional manual gating strategies become insufficient for detecting subtle population differences in MRD contexts [38].

Spectral Flow Cytometry and Expanded Panel Design

Spectral flow cytometry represents a significant technological advancement that enables more complex panel designs through full-spectrum fingerprinting of fluorophores. Unlike conventional flow cytometry that uses optical filters to detect specific wavelength ranges, spectral cytometers capture the complete emission spectrum of each fluorophore, allowing sophisticated unmixing algorithms to distinguish fluorophores with highly overlapping emission spectra [36]. This capability enables the compatibility and distinction of many fluorescent combinations that were previously difficult or impossible to separate, such as PerCP and PerCP-eFluor 710, or APC and Alexa Fluor 647 [36]. Additionally, spectral flow cytometry can identify and computationally remove autofluorescence during analysis, further improving resolution of true positive signals, particularly important for detecting rare MRD populations [36].

Ultra-Sensitive Detection and Clinical Implementation

Future directions in MFC-MRD focus on pushing detection sensitivity beyond current limits while improving standardization across centers. Recent advancements have increased the sensitivity of flow cytometry to approximately 10^-6, making it comparable to molecular assays, with technical feasibility for further gains toward 10^-7–10^-8 [31]. However, the routine implementation of such ultra-sensitive detection remains uncertain due to sample and resource constraints in diagnostic laboratories [31]. The clinical value of these ultra-sensitive approaches in guiding treatment decisions and improving patient outcomes represents an active area of investigation. Additionally, ongoing harmonization initiatives aim to establish standardized data analysis pipelines to ensure MRD results are reproducible, comparable, and clinically actionable across different centers [31]. These efforts include updated consensus recommendations from international groups such as the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) and European Myeloma Network (EMN) for MRD assessment in various hematologic malignancies [31].

Minimal residual disease (MRD) refers to the small number of cancer cells that persist in patients after treatment who have achieved clinical and hematological remission [1]. In hematological malignancies, these residual cells represent a latent reservoir of disease that can lead to relapse if not properly addressed [1]. The accurate and early detection of MRD is crucial because it allows clinicians to identify and address these residual cancer cells before they grow into a full-blown relapse, thereby dramatically improving patient outcomes by tailoring treatment strategies to the individual's current disease state [1]. Molecular techniques for MRD detection have evolved significantly, with polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based methods and next-generation sequencing (NGS) playing pivotal roles in monitoring treatment response, predicting relapse, and guiding clinical trial endpoints for cancer drugs [1].

The clinical significance of MRD detection is substantial across various hematological malignancies. In acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML), patients with positive MRD before and after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation or at any time point during treatment have a strong negative prognostic indication for relapse and worse overall survival [39]. In chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), patients reaching a continual deep molecular response in a shorter time upon receiving tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment are predicted to have better outcomes and may be eligible for discontinuation of TKI therapy [39]. Furthermore, MRD status serves as a powerful tool for risk stratification, helping identify patients at high and low recurrence risk to guide treatment adjustments [1].

Quantitative PCR (qPCR) in MRD Monitoring

Principles and Methodologies

Quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) is an advanced form of PCR used to quantify specific DNA or RNA targets present in a sample, providing data that reflects the initial amount of target nucleic acid [1]. This technique monitors the amplification of a targeted DNA molecule during the PCR process in real time, not at its end, using fluorescent reporters [40]. The point at which the fluorescence signal crosses a predetermined threshold correlates with the initial quantity of the target sequence [40]. Two main detection chemistries are employed in qPCR: DNA-binding dyes that intercalate with double-stranded DNA, and sequence-specific probes (such as TaqMan probes or molecular beacons) labeled with fluorescent reporters [40].

For MRD detection in hematological malignancies, two primary qPCR approaches are utilized: fusion gene qPCR and immunoglobulin heavy chain (IgH)/T-cell receptor (TCR) rearrangement qPCR [1]. Fusion gene qPCR targets specific chromosomal translocations, such as BCR-ABL1 in CML or PML-RARA in acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL), and achieves sensitivity up to 10^-6 [1]. IgH/TCR rearrangement qPCR quantifies clonal rearrangements and offers sensitivity up to 10^-5, though it may not detect all genetic variations [1]. The development of multiplex qPCR assays has enabled simultaneous detection of multiple AML-associated rearrangements, providing a versatile and sensitive method for reliable screening of recurrent genetic abnormalities [41].

Experimental Protocol for qPCR-Based MRD Detection

Sample Preparation and Nucleic Acid Extraction:

• Collect bone marrow or peripheral blood samples in appropriate anticoagulant tubes.
• Isolate mononuclear cells using density gradient centrifugation.
• Extract total RNA using commercial kits with DNase treatment to remove genomic DNA contamination.
• Quantify RNA concentration and assess purity using spectrophotometry (A260/A280 ratio >1.8).
• Convert RNA to complementary DNA (cDNA) using reverse transcriptase with random hexamers or gene-specific primers.

qPCR Reaction Setup:

• Prepare reaction mix containing: cDNA template, forward and reverse primers (200-500 nM each), fluorescently labeled probe (100-200 nM), dNTPs, PCR buffer, magnesium chloride (optimized concentration), hot-start DNA polymerase, and nuclease-free water.
• Utilize commercially available master mixes for improved reproducibility.
• Include negative controls (no template and negative patient samples) and positive controls (serial dilutions of plasmids containing target sequence or cell lines with known fusion transcripts).
• Perform reactions in triplicate to ensure technical reproducibility.

Thermal Cycling and Data Analysis:

• Use the following typical cycling conditions: initial denaturation at 95°C for 10 minutes, followed by 40-50 cycles of denaturation at 95°C for 15 seconds, and annealing/extension at 60°C for 1 minute.
• Collect fluorescence data at the end of each annealing/extension step.
• Generate a standard curve using serial dilutions of known template concentrations for absolute quantification.
• Calculate target concentration based on the cycle threshold (Ct) values using the comparative Ct method or standard curve analysis.
• Normalize results to reference genes (e.g., ABL1, GUSB, or B2M) to account for variations in RNA quality and cDNA synthesis efficiency.

Applications and Limitations in MRD Context

qPCR has been widely used for MRD monitoring in various hematological malignancies, including CML, ALL, AML, and multiple myeloma [1]. Its high sensitivity and specificity for known targets make it particularly valuable for tracking specific genetic abnormalities during treatment [1]. In CML, qPCR monitoring of BCR-ABL1 transcript levels has become the standard of care for assessing response to TKI therapy [39]. Similarly, in APL, qPCR detection of PML-RARA transcripts guides treatment decisions and allows for early intervention at molecular relapse before hematological recurrence [42].

However, qPCR has several limitations in MRD monitoring. The technique requires a reference standard curve for quantification, which can be laborious to establish and maintain [39]. It is also prone to PCR inhibition, which may affect sensitivity, reproducibility, and accuracy when detecting targets at low levels [39]. Additionally, qPCR typically assesses only one gene per assay, limiting its throughput for monitoring multiple targets simultaneously [1]. For immunoglobulin or T-cell receptor gene rearrangements, the need for patient-specific primers and the potential for clonal evolution present further challenges [42].

Digital Droplet PCR (ddPCR) for Enhanced MRD Detection

Fundamental Principles and Technical Advancements

Digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) represents the third generation of PCR technology, following conventional PCR and qPCR [40]. This innovative approach is based on the partitioning of a PCR mixture supplemented with the sample into thousands to millions of parallel nanoliter-sized reactions, so that each partition contains either 0, 1, or a few nucleic acid targets according to a Poisson distribution [42] [40]. Following PCR amplification, the fraction of positive partitions is extracted from an end-point measurement, allowing the computation of the target concentration using Poisson statistics [42] [40]. This partitioning process greatly enhances the target abundance relative to background and enables absolute quantification without the need for a standard curve [39].

The first mention of digital PCR was made by Vogelstein and Kinzler in 1999, but its effective development occurred after 2012 when instruments with greater than 10,000 partitions per reaction became commercially available [42]. Modern ddPCR protocols follow four key steps: (1) partitioning the PCR mixture containing the sample into thousands to millions of compartments; (2) amplifying individual target-containing partitions; (3) performing end-point fluorescence analysis of the partitions; and (4) computing the target concentration using Poisson statistics based on the fraction of positive and negative partitions [40]. Two major partitioning methods have emerged: water-in-oil droplet emulsification (ddPCR) and microchambers embedded in a solid chip [40].

Experimental Protocol for ddPCR-Based MRD Monitoring

Assay Design and Optimization:

• Design primers and probes following manufacturer guidelines (e.g., Bio-Rad Droplet Digital PCR Application Guide).
• Keep amplicon size preferably under 150 base pairs for optimal amplification efficiency.
• Perform conventional PCR and Sanger sequencing with diagnostic samples to confirm fusion transcripts or mutations and ensure primer viability.
• Optimize annealing/extension temperature through gradient testing (typically 58-68°C).
• For mutation detection, consider incorporating a restriction enzyme digestion step to enhance specificity.

Droplet Generation and PCR Amplification:

• Prepare reaction mix containing: cDNA or DNA template, forward and reverse primers, FAM and HEX-labeled probes, ddPCR supermix, and nuclease-free water.
• Generate droplets using automated droplet generator according to manufacturer's instructions.
• Transfer emulsified samples to 96-well PCR plates and seal properly.
• Perform PCR amplification with the following typical conditions: enzyme activation at 95°C for 10 minutes, followed by 40 cycles of denaturation at 94°C for 30 seconds, and annealing/extension at optimized temperature (often 60°C) for 1 minute, with a final enzyme deactivation at 98°C for 10 minutes. Include a droplet stabilization step as recommended.

Droplet Reading and Data Analysis:

• Load PCR-amplified droplets into droplet reader for sequential analysis.
• Set appropriate thresholds to distinguish positive and negative droplets based on fluorescence amplitude.
• Analyze data using companion software that applies Poisson statistics to calculate absolute target concentration.
• For fusion transcript monitoring, normalize results to reference genes (e.g., ABL1) by running parallel assays or using extrapolation methods when sample is limited.
• Implement quality control measures including no-template controls, positive controls, and assessment of droplet quality.

Comparative Performance in MRD Detection

ddPCR offers several advantages over qPCR for MRD monitoring. It provides absolute quantification without the need for a standard curve, eliminates the reliance on amplification efficiency, and demonstrates greater tolerance to PCR inhibitors [39]. Studies have shown that ddPCR exhibits superior sensitivity compared to qPCR, particularly for samples with very low tumor infiltration [42]. In non-Hodgkin's lymphomas, ddPCR demonstrated up to one log higher sensitivity than qPCR [42]. Similarly, in Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia, ddPCR reached a sensitivity of 5 × 10^-5, 1.5 log higher than that offered by Allele-Specific Oligonucleotide PCR (ASO-PCR) [42].

In acute B lymphoblastic leukemia, ddPCR has been compared to qPCR for MRD assessment, with concordant results observed in 88% of cases [42]. Notably, 28% of samples defined as "positive but not quantifiable" by qPCR were quantifiable by ddPCR, suggesting its higher sensitivity and accuracy [42]. A blinded prospective study comparing qPCR and ddPCR in ALL demonstrated that ddPCR outperforms qPCR with a significantly better quantitative limit of detection and sensitivity, reducing the number of critical MRD estimates below quantitative limit by threefold to sixfold [43].

Table 1: Comparison of qPCR and ddPCR for MRD Detection

Parameter	qPCR	ddPCR
Quantification Method	Relative (requires standard curve)	Absolute (Poisson statistics)
Sensitivity	10^-4 to 10^-6 [1]	Up to 10^-6 or higher [1] [42]
Precision at Low Target Levels	Moderate	High
Tolerance to PCR Inhibitors	Low	High
Throughput	Moderate	Moderate to High
Cost	Lower	Higher
Sample Consumption	Lower	Higher
Applications	Known targets with available standards	Rare targets, rare mutations, low abundance targets

Fusion Transcript Analysis in Hematological Malignancies

Technical Approaches for Fusion Detection

Fusion genes, hybrid genes formed from two previously independent genes, are implicated in a wide range of cancers—particularly myeloid cancers [44]. Research has revealed the presence of fusion genes in approximately 41% of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and 29% of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) cases [44]. Traditional methods to detect fusion genes include karyotyping, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) [1] [44]. More recently, next-generation sequencing (NGS) has emerged as a key method for fusion gene identification and characterization [44].

Karyotype analysis is traditionally used for diagnosing major chromosomal abnormalities but has limited sensitivity for MRD detection (approximately 5 × 10^-2) due to its inability to identify low levels of residual disease [1]. FISH is effective for detecting specific genetic abnormalities and chromosomal translocations with improved sensitivity (approximately 10^-2), but may not be sufficient for detecting MRD in all cases [1]. RT-PCR provides higher sensitivity (10^-4 to 10^-6) and is valuable for monitoring known genetic abnormalities, though it typically assesses only one gene per assay [1].

NGS-based approaches offer comprehensive detection of clonal rearrangements, somatic mutations, and MRD across a broad spectrum of genetic alterations with sensitivity up to 10^-6 [1]. Targeted RNA sequencing using anchored multiplex PCR enables detection of recurrent and rare gene fusions without prior knowledge of the partner sequence or specific breakpoints [45]. This method combines gene-specific primers with adapters containing a universal primer binding site to amplify sequences of interest, followed by nested PCR for increased specificity [45].

Experimental Protocol for Fusion Transcript Analysis via NGS

Library Preparation:

• Extract high-quality total RNA from patient samples (bone marrow or peripheral blood).
• Assess RNA integrity using methods such as the RNA Integrity Number (RIN).
• Convert RNA to cDNA using reverse transcriptase with random primers.
• Perform targeted enrichment using hybridization-based panels (e.g., SureSeq Myeloid Fusion Panel) or amplicon-based approaches (e.g., anchored multiplex PCR).
• For hybridization-based methods: fragment cDNA, hybridize with target-specific probes, capture target sequences, and amplify captured fragments with unique dual indexes to enable sample multiplexing.
• For anchored multiplex PCR: use gene-specific primers with adapters containing universal primer binding sites, followed by a second PCR with nested gene-specific primers for increased specificity.

Sequencing and Data Analysis:

• Pool libraries in equimolar ratios after quantification.
• Sequence on appropriate NGS platforms (e.g., MiSeq) with sufficient depth (typically >1 million reads per sample).
• Demultiplex sequences based on unique dual indexes.
• Align sequences to reference genome using appropriate aligners.
• Identify fusion transcripts using specialized analysis software (e.g., Interpret NGS Analysis Software) that detects chimeric reads spanning breakpoints.
• Filter results based on read count, spanning read quality, and breakpoint precision.
• Annotate fusions with clinical significance according to established guidelines.

Validation and Reporting:

• Validate novel or unexpected fusions using orthogonal methods (RT-PCR, Sanger sequencing).
• Quantify expression levels of relevant genes (e.g., MECOM overexpression for inv(3) rearrangements).
• Report clinically relevant fusions with interpretation of therapeutic and prognostic implications.

Clinical Significance of Key Fusion Transcripts

Fusion transcripts serve as important diagnostic, prognostic, and predictive biomarkers in hematological malignancies. The BCR-ABL1 fusion in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), occurring as a result of the Philadelphia chromosome, produces a fusion protein with increased tyrosine kinase activity that can be effectively targeted with specific tyrosine kinase inhibitors [45]. The PML-RARA fusion in acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) expresses a fusion protein that interacts with all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA), making patients highly responsive to ATRA treatment [45].

The KMT2A (formerly MLL) gene is commonly rearranged in both pediatric and adult ALL and AML, with 135 different fusion partner genes described so far [45]. Detection of specific KMT2A rearrangements carries prognostic significance and may guide treatment intensity decisions [45]. Other clinically significant fusions include RUNX1-RUNX1T1 (formerly AML1-ETO) in AML, CBFB-MYH11 in AML, and various TCF3 rearrangements in ALL [41].

Table 2: Key Fusion Transcripts in Hematological Malignancies and Their Clinical Significance

Fusion Transcript	Disease Association	Prognostic Significance	Therapeutic Implications
BCR-ABL1	CML, ALL	Adverse in ALL	Tyrosine kinase inhibitors
PML-RARA	APL	Favorable	ATRA, arsenic trioxide
RUNX1-RUNX1T1	AML	Favorable	Standard chemotherapy
CBFB-MYH11	AML	Favorable	Standard chemotherapy
KMT2A rearrangements	AML, ALL	Adverse in adults, variable in children	Potential targeted therapies
TCF3-PBX1	ALL	Intermediate	Standard chemotherapy

Integrated Workflows and Technical Comparisons

Complementary Use of Techniques in MRD Monitoring

The various molecular techniques for MRD monitoring are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary in clinical practice. qPCR remains the gold standard for monitoring specific, well-characterized fusion transcripts like BCR-ABL1 in CML, where established international scales and treatment guidelines exist [39]. ddPCR offers advantages for detecting rare fusion transcripts and mutations, monitoring low-level disease, and analyzing samples that may contain PCR inhibitors [39]. NGS-based methods provide the most comprehensive approach for initial diagnosis, detection of novel fusions, and monitoring clonal evolution [45] [44].

In clinical practice, the choice of technique depends on the specific clinical scenario, including the type of malignancy, treatment context, and available resources [1]. For diseases with established molecular markers and well-defined monitoring protocols, qPCR may be sufficient. For challenging cases with rare mutations, low disease burden, or discordant results, ddPCR provides enhanced sensitivity and precision. For diagnostic workup and detection of unknown or multiple genetic abnormalities, NGS offers unparalleled comprehensiveness.

Comparative Technical Specifications

Table 3: Comprehensive Comparison of MRD Detection Techniques

Parameter	Karyotyping	FISH	qPCR	ddPCR	NGS
Sensitivity	5 × 10^-2 [1]	10^-2 [1]	10^-4 to 10^-6 [1]	10^-5 to 10^-6 [1] [42]	10^-2 to 10^-6 [1]
Applicability	~50% [1]	~50% [1]	40-50% [1]	>95% [42]	>95% [1]
Turnaround Time	Slow (days to weeks)	Relatively fast (1-3 days)	Moderate (1-2 days)	Fast (6-8 hours)	Slow (3-5 days) [45]
Cost	Low	Moderate	Moderate	Moderate to High	High
Throughput	Low	Low to Moderate	Moderate	Moderate	High
Standardization	Standardized	Standardized	Standardized	Emerging standardization [42]	Not standardized yet [1]
Key Advantage	Genome-wide view	Specific abnormality detection	High sensitivity for known targets	Absolute quantification, high precision	Comprehensive, novel fusion detection

Research Reagent Solutions for MRD Detection

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Their Applications in MRD Detection

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function	Application Notes
Nucleic Acid Extraction Kits	QIAamp DNA/RNA Blood Mini Kits, TRIzol reagent	Isolation of high-quality nucleic acids from clinical samples	Critical for sensitive detection; assess purity and integrity
Reverse Transcription Kits	High-Capacity cDNA Reverse Transcription Kit	Conversion of RNA to cDNA for fusion transcript analysis	Include DNase treatment to eliminate genomic DNA contamination
qPCR Master Mixes	TaqMan Universal Master Mix, SYBR Green Master Mix	Amplification and detection of target sequences	Probe-based for specificity; SYBR Green for melt curve analysis
ddPCR Supermixes	ddPCR Supermix for Probes	Partitioned amplification in droplets	No dUTP/UNG required; optimized for droplet stability
NGS Library Prep Kits	SureSeq Myeloid Fusion Panel, Anchored Multiplex PCR kits	Target enrichment and library preparation	Hybridization-based for comprehensive coverage; amplicon-based for simplicity
Probes and Primers	TaqMan probes, Custom-designed primers	Target-specific amplification	FAM/HEX dual labeling for multiplex ddPCR; validation required
Reference Standards	Plasmid controls, Cell line-derived standards	Quantification and quality control	Essential for qPCR standard curves; less critical for ddPCR

Signaling Pathways and Experimental Workflows

Diagram 1: Integrated Workflow for MRD Detection in Hematological Malignancies

Diagram 2: Fusion Transcript Formation and Detection Pathways

Molecular techniques for MRD detection, including qPCR, ddPCR, and fusion transcript analysis, have revolutionized the management of hematological malignancies. These methods provide sensitive and specific approaches for monitoring treatment response, predicting relapse, and guiding therapeutic decisions. While qPCR remains the gold standard for many established biomarkers, ddPCR offers advantages in absolute quantification, precision at low target levels, and detection of rare mutations. Fusion transcript analysis through various methodologies enables comprehensive characterization of disease biology and identification of therapeutic targets.

The future of MRD detection lies in the integration of these technologies, leveraging their complementary strengths to provide a complete picture of disease status. Advancements in NGS, including improved sensitivity, reduced costs, and shorter turnaround times, will likely expand its role in routine clinical practice. Simultaneously, the development of standardized guidelines for emerging technologies like ddPCR will facilitate their broader implementation. As we move toward increasingly personalized medicine, the refined application of these molecular techniques will continue to enhance risk stratification, treatment customization, and ultimately, patient outcomes in hematological malignancies.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has revolutionized minimal residual disease (MRD) detection by enabling the tracking of unique DNA sequences—specifically clonal rearrangements of immunoglobulin (Ig) and T-cell receptor (TCR) genes or somatic mutations—with a sensitivity far surpassing traditional methods. This approach allows researchers and clinicians to identify the presence of cancer cells at levels as low as 1x10^-6 (0.0001%), making it a cornerstone of modern precision oncology research for predicting relapse and monitoring treatment efficacy [46] [47] [48].

Core Principles of NGS-based Clonality and Mutation Tracking

The fundamental principle underlying NGS-based MRD detection is the identification of a unique, persistent molecular fingerprint of a patient's cancer cells. This fingerprint can be based on one of two primary features:

• Clonal Rearrangements of Antigen Receptor Genes: In lymphoid cancers (e.g., acute lymphoblastic leukemia, lymphoma), B-cell and T-cell malignancies originate from a single cell. During lymphocyte development, the Ig and TCR genes undergo V-(D)-J recombination, creating a unique DNA sequence that is specific to that single cell and all its progeny (the "clone"). NGS can be designed to amplify and sequence these rearranged regions, providing a highly specific marker for tracking that cancerous clone [49] [46].
• Somatic Mutations: In both solid and hematologic tumors, cancer cells acquire somatic mutations in their DNA. A tumor-informed NGS approach involves first sequencing the tumor tissue (via FFPE or fresh frozen sample) to identify a set of somatic mutations unique to that patient's cancer. A custom panel is then designed to track these specific mutations in subsequent liquid biopsy samples via circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) [47] [50].

The extreme sensitivity of NGS-MRD assays is achieved through deep sequencing, generating millions of reads to reliably detect these rare DNA molecules against a background of normal DNA, and the use of unique molecular identifiers (UMIs) to correct for PCR and sequencing errors [47].

Performance and Clinical Research Data

NGS-based MRD assays demonstrate high sensitivity and concordance with established methods, supporting their use in clinical research.

Table 1: Diagnostic Performance of NGS in Detecting Clonality and Actionable Mutations

Application / Cancer Type	Sensitivity (Pooled)	Specificity (Pooled)	Comparison Method	Key Findings
TCR Rearrangements (nTFHL lymphoma) [49]	97% (clonality detection rate)	N/A	EuroClonality/BIOMED-2 PCR	NGS detected two or more clonal targets in all clonal samples, while conventional assay detected a single dominant rearrangement in only 3 cases.
Actionable Mutations in NSCLC (Tissue) [51]	93% (EGFR), 99% (ALK)	97% (EGFR), 98% (ALK)	PCR, IHC, FISH	NGS enables comprehensive mutation analysis from a single test.
Actionable Mutations in NSCLC (Liquid Biopsy) [51]	80% (for EGFR, BRAF V600E, KRAS G12C, HER2)	99%	PCR, IHC, FISH	Effective for point mutations; limited sensitivity for ALK, ROS1, RET, and NTRK rearrangements.
MRD in ALL [46]	Superior to MFC	High correlation with MFC for positive cases	Multiparametric Flow Cytometry (MFC)	NGS identified more MRD-positive cases in both B-ALL (57.5% vs. 26.9%) and T-ALL (80% vs. 46.7%).

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of MRD Testing Modalities in Research

Parameter	NGS-based MRD	Multiparametric Flow Cytometry (MFC)	qRT-PCR
Sensitivity	Up to 10^-6 [47]	10^-4 to 10^-5 [46]	10^-4 to 10^-6 [46]
Applicability	~88% (B-ALL) [46]	Nearly 100% [46]	~50-60% (fusion genes) [46]
Turnaround Time	Varies; liquid biopsy faster than tissue [51]	Fast	Laborious; primer design can take 3-4 weeks [46]
Key Advantage	Ultra-sensitive, quantifiable, tracks clonal evolution [46] [48]	Fast, widely applicable, functional data	High sensitivity for known targets
Key Limitation	Cost, bioinformatics complexity, standardization [46] [48]	Subjectivity, antigenic shift [46]	Limited applicability, labor-intensive [46]

Experimental Workflows for MRD Research

Tumor-Informed ctDNA MRD Workflow

This is the predominant method for MRD detection in solid tumors and an emerging standard in hematologic cancers. It is a two-phase process.

Phase 1: Variant Discovery The goal is to comprehensively profile the tumor to define its unique genetic signature.

• Sample Acquisition: Obtain matched tumor tissue (FFPE or fresh frozen) and normal sample (e.g., peripheral blood, saliva) to distinguish somatic (cancer) mutations from germline (inherited) variants [47].
• Nucleic Acid Extraction: Extract high-quality DNA from both samples. For the tumor, this may involve macro-dissection to enrich tumor content.
• Library Preparation: Convert the extracted DNA into an NGS library by fragmenting the DNA and ligating platform-specific adapters. These adapters contain unique molecular identifiers (UMIs) - short random nucleotide sequences that tag each original DNA molecule, which is critical for error correction in downstream analysis [47].
• Hybridization Capture & Sequencing: Use a comprehensive hybridization capture panel (e.g., a whole-exome or large pan-cancer panel) to enrich for genomic regions of interest from the tumor DNA library. Sequence both the tumor and normal libraries to a high depth.
• Bioinformatic Analysis: Align sequences to a reference genome and call somatic variants (SNVs, indels) by comparing tumor and normal data. Select 10-50 of these patient-specific somatic variants to create a personalized fingerprint for tracking [47].

Phase 2: MRD Detection and Monitoring

• Custom Panel Design: A custom, tumor-specific NGS panel (e.g., xGen MRD Hybridization Panel) is synthesized with probes targeting the variants identified in Phase 1. This small, focused panel allows for ultra-deep sequencing [47].
• Longitudinal Sample Collection: Collect peripheral blood from the patient at regular intervals post-treatment (e.g., after surgery, during adjuvant therapy, during surveillance) to isolate cell-free DNA (cfDNA).
• Library Prep & Target Enrichment: Prepare NGS libraries from the plasma cfDNA, again using UMI-adapter technology. Enrich the libraries using the custom MRD panel.
• Ultra-Deep Sequencing: Sequence the resulting libraries to an extreme depth (often >100,000x coverage) to detect the extremely rare variant alleles indicative of MRD.
• MRD Calling: Bioinformatic pipelines use the UMIs to group sequencing reads originating from the same original DNA molecule, correct for sequencing errors, and confidently identify the presence (or absence) of the tumor-derived variants. The result is a quantitative measure of ctDNA levels (e.g., mean tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma) [47].

The following diagram illustrates this tumor-informed MRD workflow:

Immunosequencing for Clonal Rearrangements

This method is the gold standard for MRD detection in lymphoid malignancies like ALL, CLL, and multiple myeloma, where the cancer cell of origin has a naturally rearranged antigen receptor gene.

• Diagnostic Sample Analysis:

  • DNA Extraction: Isolate genomic DNA from a sample with high tumor burden (e.g., bone marrow aspirate, lymph node biopsy, or peripheral blood) at diagnosis.
  • Multiplex PCR Amplification: Use multiplex PCR primers designed to target the V, (D), and J gene segments of the Ig (IGH, IGK, IGL) or TCR genes. This generates amplicons spanning the entire repertoire of rearrangements in the sample.
  • NGS Library Prep and Sequencing: The amplicons are prepared for NGS and sequenced at a high depth.
  • Clonotype Identification: Bioinformatic analysis identifies the specific, dominant rearranged DNA sequence(s) that define the malignant clone. This is the "clonotype" that will be tracked for MRD [49] [46].

• MRD Monitoring:

  • Follow-up Sample Collection: Obtain longitudinal samples (e.g., bone marrow post-induction therapy) and extract DNA.
  • Tracking PCR Amplification: Use the same multiplex PCR approach as used at diagnosis.
  • Sequencing and Quantification: Sequence the resulting libraries and use bioinformatic tools to quantify the number of sequencing reads that exactly match the clonotype(s) identified at diagnosis. The result is reported as a proportion of the total sequencing reads, providing a highly sensitive and quantitative measure of MRD [49].

The following flowchart summarizes the immunosequencing workflow for lymphoid malignancies:

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful implementation of NGS-MRD assays requires a suite of specialized reagents and tools.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Kits for NGS-MRD

Research Tool	Function	Example Use-Case / Note
xGen cfDNA & FFPE DNA Library Prep Kit (IDT) [47]	Prepares sequencing libraries from low-input/ degraded samples; incorporates UMIs for error correction.	Critical for achieving high library complexity from cfDNA, enabling detection of variants at ≤1% VAF.
xGen MRD Hybridization Panel (IDT) [47]	Custom panel of probes to enrich for patient-specific somatic mutations identified in the variant discovery phase.	Targets up to 2000 variants; designed and shipped in ~5 business days.
xGen Hybridization and Wash Kit (IDT) [47]	Reagents for performing the hybridization capture reaction to enrich libraries for targeted regions.	An ancillary kit required for the custom MRD panel workflow.
oPools Oligo Pools (IDT) [47]	Pooled oligonucleotides for constructing custom amplicon panels for multiplex PCR-based NGS workflows.	An alternative to hybridization capture; used for immunosequencing or other targeted assays.
EuroClonality NGS Assay [49]	A standardized, amplicon-based NGS method for T-cell receptor (TR) and immunoglobulin (Ig) gene rearrangement analysis.	Used in research to profile TRG and TRB gene rearrangements in T-cell lymphomas.
Unique Molecular Identifiers (UMIs) [47]	Short random nucleotide sequences ligated to each DNA fragment during library prep before PCR amplification.	Allows bioinformatic correction of PCR and sequencing errors, which is essential for ultra-low variant detection.

Key Considerations and Future Directions

While NGS provides a powerful tool for MRD research, several challenges and evolving areas require attention:

• Standardization and Guidelines: As NGS provides abundant data on clonotype sequences and productivity, there is a pressing need for novel, standardized guidelines for interpreting this complex information in a clinical research context [49].
• Bioinformatics Complexity: The analysis of NGS-MRD data requires sophisticated pipelines for UMI processing, error correction, and variant calling. This demands robust computational resources and expertise [46] [48].
• Liquid Biopsy Advantages: Using plasma ctDNA for MRD monitoring is less invasive than tissue biopsies and shows a significantly shorter turnaround time (8.18 vs. 19.75 days in one NSCLC study), facilitating more dynamic disease monitoring [51].
• Emerging Technologies and Companies: The field is rapidly advancing with new assays and platforms. Key players in 2025 include Natera (Signatera), Adaptive Biotechnologies (clonoSEQ), Guardant Health (Guardant Reveal), Personalis (NeXT Personal), and NeoGenomics (RaDaR), each offering distinct approaches to tumor-informed or liquid-biopsy-based MRD testing [25] [50]. Future directions include the application of whole-genome sequencing for MRD, single-cell sequencing for understanding clonal heterogeneity, and the continued expansion of validated assays into new cancer types [25] [48] [50].

Minimal residual disease (MRD) refers to the presence of cancerous cells that remain in the body after treatment at levels below the detection capability of conventional radiological imaging. The detection of MRD is critically important in oncology as it represents the primary source of disease recurrence, and accurately identifying it enables early intervention when tumor burden is still low. Liquid biopsy has emerged as a transformative, minimally invasive approach for MRD detection by analyzing circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA)—fragments of tumor-derived DNA found in the bloodstream. This technique overcomes the limitations of traditional tissue biopsies, which are invasive, cannot be frequently repeated, and may fail to capture the spatial and temporal heterogeneity of tumors [52].

The two principal methodological paradigms for ctDNA-based MRD testing are tumor-informed and tumor-naïve (also referred to as tumor-agnostic) approaches. The fundamental distinction lies in whether the test design incorporates prior knowledge of the patient's specific tumor mutations. Tumor-informed assays utilize sequencing of a patient's tumor tissue (from surgical resection or biopsy) to identify a set of patient-specific somatic mutations; a highly sensitive PCR or NGS test is then designed to track these specific mutations in subsequent blood samples. In contrast, tumor-naïve assays use a fixed, predetermined panel of cancer-associated genes and mutations to interrogate ctDNA without any prior analysis of the patient's tumor tissue [53].

This technical guide provides an in-depth comparison of these two approaches, focusing on their application in MRD research and drug development. We will examine their underlying methodologies, performance characteristics, and experimental protocols, providing researchers and scientists with the data necessary to select the appropriate assay for their specific clinical or investigational context.

Core Concepts and Comparative Performance

Fundamental Technical Distinctions

• Tumor-Informed Approach: This method involves a two-step process. First, the patient's tumor tissue is sequenced via Whole Exome Sequencing (WES) or Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) to identify clonal somatic mutations (typically 16-50 variants). A personalized assay, often using multiplex PCR or hybrid capture NGS, is then designed to track these specific mutations in plasma ctDNA. The key advantage is the ultra-high sensitivity and specificity achieved by targeting patient-specific markers and filtering out non-tumor-derived signals like clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) [53]. The main disadvantage is the longer initial turnaround time (typically 2-3 weeks) and the requirement for high-quality tumor tissue [53].

• Tumor-Naïve Approach: This method uses a fixed panel of frequently mutated cancer genes (often 50-200 genes) to interrogate ctDNA from a blood draw without prior tumor sequencing. The primary advantage is the faster turnaround time and the ability to test patients for whom tumor tissue is unavailable. The disadvantage is the lack of personalization, which can limit sensitivity, especially in tumors with low mutation rates or when ctDNA levels are minimal. There is also a higher risk of false positives from CHIP mutations that are not filtered out [53].

Quantitative Performance Comparison

Data from multiple clinical studies across various cancer types consistently demonstrate performance differences between the two approaches, particularly in detecting low levels of ctDNA.

Table 1: Comparative Analytical Performance of Tumor-Informed vs. Tumor-Naïve Assays

Cancer Type	Tumor-Informed Sensitivity	Tumor-Naïve Sensitivity	Key Findings	Source
Colorectal Cancer	Pooled HR: 8.66 (95% CI: 6.38-11.75) for recurrence	Pooled HR: 3.76 (95% CI: 2.58-5.48) for recurrence	Tumor-informed testing showed significantly superior prognostic value for recurrence.	Chidharla et al. Meta-analysis [53]
Pancreatic Cancer	56% (detection rate post-resection)	39% (detection rate post-resection)	Tumor-informed approach improved ctDNA detection rate in resected patients.	Watanabe et al. [53]
Breast Cancer	Detection down to 0.00024% Allele Frequency (2.4 ppm)	Varies with panel design and depth	Hybrid capture targeting thousands of tumor-identified mutations was most sensitive.	Santonja et al. [54]

The following diagram illustrates the fundamental workflow differences between the two testing methodologies:

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Tumor-Informed Assay Protocol

The tumor-informed approach is a multi-stage process requiring rigorous standardization. The following protocol is adapted from studies demonstrating the highest sensitivity, such as the hybrid capture method capable of detecting ctDNA down to 0.00024% variant allele frequency (VAF) [54].

Step 1: Tumor Whole Exome/Genome Sequencing and Variant Identification

• DNA Extraction: Extract high-molecular-weight DNA from fresh-frozen or FFPE tumor tissue and matched normal samples (e.g., peripheral blood mononuclear cells).
• Library Preparation & Sequencing: Prepare sequencing libraries using methods that incorporate Unique Molecular Identifiers (UMIs). Sequence to high coverage (≥500x for tumor, ≥200x for normal).
• Bioinformatic Analysis: Perform alignment and variant calling. Select 20-50 high-confidence, clonal somatic mutations (SNVs, indels) for the patient-specific panel.

Step 2: Personalized ctDNA Assay Design and Application

• Panel Design: Synthesize a custom panel or set of probes targeting the selected patient-specific mutations.
• Plasma Analysis: Extract cell-free DNA from patient plasma. Prepare NGS libraries with UMIs. Perform hybrid capture using the custom panel, followed by ultra-deep sequencing (>100,000x raw coverage).
• Variant Calling & MRD Assessment: Use a bioinformatics pipeline that groups reads by UMI to generate consensus sequences and eliminate PCR errors. The presence of two or more different patient-specific mutations (with supporting UMI groups) above a background error threshold is typically considered a positive MRD signal [54].

Tumor-Naïve Assay Protocol

Tumor-naïve assays employ a more direct, one-step workflow but face significant technical hurdles in achieving high sensitivity.

Step 1: Panel Selection and Validation

• Select a commercially available or custom-designed fixed panel targeting frequently mutated regions in the cancer type of interest (e.g., 50-200 genes).

Step 2: Plasma cfDNA Analysis

• cfDNA Extraction and Quantification: Extract cfDNA from plasma. Accurate quantification is critical, as input mass dictates the number of genome equivalents and limits sensitivity [55].
• Library Preparation and Sequencing: Prepare NGS libraries with UMIs to mitigate PCR amplification errors and allow for accurate deduplication. Sequence to a high depth of coverage (often >30,000x).
• Bioinformatic Analysis: Align sequences, perform UMI-aware deduplication, and call variants. The effective depth of coverage post-deduplication is a key determinant of the Limit of Detection (LoD). For a VAF of 0.1%, a depth of ~10,000x is required for a 99% detection probability [55]. False positives from CHIP must be identified using population databases or orthogonal methods.

Technical Considerations and Optimization Strategies

Overcoming Sensitivity Limitations

A primary challenge in ctDNA MRD detection is the low abundance of tumor-derived DNA against a large background of wild-type DNA. Key parameters must be optimized to maximize the signal-to-noise ratio.

Table 2: The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Technologies for ctDNA MRD

Research Tool	Function	Impact on Assay Performance
Unique Molecular Identifiers (UMIs)	Short nucleotide tags added to each original DNA molecule before PCR amplification.	Enables bioinformatic correction of PCR and sequencing errors, dramatically improving sensitivity for low-frequency variants [55].
Ultra-Deep Sequencing	Sequencing to very high coverage (e.g., >50,000x raw depth).	Increases the probability of capturing rare mutant molecules; essential for detecting VAFs below 0.1% [55].
Hybrid Capture Probes	Biotinylated oligonucleotides designed to target specific genomic regions.	In tumor-informed assays, patient-specific probes allow for highly multiplexed and sensitive enrichment of target mutations [54].
Multiplex PCR Assays	Multiple primer sets amplifying specific targets in a single reaction.	Offers a highly sensitive and cost-effective alternative for amplifying a defined set of tumor-informed mutations [54].
Bioinformatic Pipelines	Computational workflows for UMI processing, variant calling, and CHIP filtering.	Critical for distinguishing true variants from technical artifacts and biological noise; requires "allowed" and "blocked" lists to enhance accuracy [55].

The relationship between sequencing depth, variant allele frequency, and detection confidence is a fundamental principle in assay design, as illustrated below:

Navigating Biological and Logistical Challenges

• ctDNA Shedding and Input DNA: The absolute quantity of mutant DNA fragments is a critical constraint. Tumor types vary significantly in their cfDNA shedding rates (e.g., liver cancers shed more than lung cancers). A 10 mL blood draw from a lung cancer patient might yield only ~8,000 haploid genome equivalents. With a ctDNA fraction of 0.1%, this provides only ~8 mutant molecules, making detection statistically challenging [55]. This necessitates sufficient blood volume and optimized cfDNA extraction.

• Clonal Hematopoiesis (CHIP): CHIP mutations originate from blood cells and represent a major source of false positives in tumor-naïve assays. The tumor-informed approach inherently controls for this by filtering out mutations not found in the original tumor [53]. In tumor-naïve testing, bioinformatic filtering using databases of common CHIP mutations is required.

• Tumor Heterogeneity: A tumor-naïve panel might miss mutations from tumor subclones not covered by the fixed panel. The tumor-informed method, by targeting clonal mutations identified from the entire tumor exome, is better suited to capture heterogeneous disease [53].

The choice between tumor-informed and tumor-naïve approaches for MRD detection is a strategic decision that balances sensitivity, specificity, turnaround time, and tissue availability. For clinical trial contexts and scenarios where the highest possible sensitivity is required to detect ultra-low levels of ctDNA—such as guiding adjuvant therapy decisions—the evidence strongly supports the superior performance of tumor-informed assays [53] [54]. Tumor-naïve assays, however, provide a faster, more accessible option for situations where tissue is unavailable or for monitoring later-stage disease where ctDNA burden is higher.

The field continues to evolve rapidly. Technological innovations like the MUTE-Seq method, which uses engineered FnCas9 to selectively eliminate wild-type DNA, promise further gains in sensitivity [56]. Furthermore, the combination of ctDNA analysis with other analytes, such as circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and extracellular vesicles (EVs), may provide a more comprehensive view of MRD [56] [52]. As standardization improves and costs decrease, tumor-informed approaches are predicted to become the dominant modality for MRD testing in oncology drug development and, ultimately, in routine clinical practice [53].

Minimal residual disease (MRD) refers to the small population of cancer cells that persist in patients after treatment at levels undetectable by conventional methods, representing a primary cause of relapse in hematological malignancies and solid tumors [1]. The detection of MRD provides critical prognostic information, with MRD-positive status after therapy correlating with dramatically poorer outcomes—5-year overall survival rates of approximately 34% for MRD-positive patients compared to 68% for MRD-negative patients in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) [26]. This stark contrast underscores the clinical imperative for sensitive, reliable MRD detection technologies.

Current MRD detection methods include flow cytometry (sensitivity 10⁻⁴ to 10⁻⁵), polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based techniques (sensitivity up to 10⁻⁶), and next-generation sequencing (NGS, sensitivity up to 10⁻⁶) [1] [26]. However, these approaches face limitations in sensitivity, reproducibility, multiplexing capability, and accessibility [1]. The integration of surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS) with microfluidics and artificial intelligence (AI) represents a transformative approach that promises to overcome these limitations, offering ultrasensitive, multiplexed, and automated MRD detection platforms suitable for both clinical and research applications [57] [58].

Technical Foundations of Integrated SERS-Microfluidics-AI Platforms

Surface-Enhanced Raman Scattering (SERS): Principles and Substrates

SERS is a powerful spectroscopic technique that amplifies the inherently weak Raman scattering signal of molecules adsorbed on or near nanostructured plasmonic materials [57]. The signal enhancement arises through two primary mechanisms:

• Electromagnetic Enhancement: This dominant mechanism (enhancement factors of 10⁸-10¹²) results from localized surface plasmon resonance (LSPR) excitation on nanostructured noble metal surfaces (typically gold or silver), generating intensely amplified electromagnetic fields at "hot spots"—typically in nanogaps (0.5-1.0 nm), crevices, or sharp points of plasmonic materials [57].
• Chemical Enhancement: This secondary mechanism (approximately 100-fold enhancement) occurs through charge transfer between the analyte molecule and the nanostructure surface when incident light energy matches electron transfer energy [57].

SERS substrate fabrication employs either top-down or bottom-up approaches:

• Top-Down Approaches: Methods like electron beam lithography (EBL) and photolithography offer precise control over nanostructure geometry, enabling creation of periodic arrays with defined nanogaps (1-20 nm) ideal for SERS [57]. EBL can fabricate various nanostructures including nanodiscs, bowties, and split rings, with lift-off processes yielding better SERS performance than plasma etching [57].
• Bottom-Up Approaches: Colloidal synthesis of nanoparticles (e.g., spherical Au/Ag nanoparticles, nanorods) provides cost-effective, scalable substrate production with potential for high enhancement factors (10⁸-10¹²) when analytes are positioned within sub-nanogaps [57].
• Hybrid Approaches: Combining top-down and bottom-up methods enables fabrication of substrates with both well-ordered patterns and high-intensity hot spots [57].

Microfluidics: Integration and Functionality

Microfluidic systems provide the fluidic handling infrastructure for SERS-based MRD detection platforms, offering crucial capabilities:

• Automated Sample Processing: Integration of sample preparation, separation, and analysis steps within miniaturized channels (typically tens to hundreds of micrometers) [58].
• Single-Cell Manipulation: Isolation and trapping of rare MRD cells (as low as 1 cell per 10⁵-10⁶ normal cells) through hydrodynamic, dielectrophoretic, or acoustic methods [26].
• Reduced Reagent Consumption: Significant reduction in sample and reagent volumes (microliter to nanoliter range), decreasing costs and enabling analysis of precious clinical specimens [58].
• Controlled Microenvironment: Precise regulation of shear stress, chemical gradients, and temporal exposures to mimic physiological conditions or apply diagnostic stimuli [58].

Artificial Intelligence: Data Analysis and Optimization

AI and machine learning algorithms address the complex data analysis challenges in SERS-based MRD detection:

• Spectral Processing: Denoising, baseline correction, and normalization of raw SERS spectra to enhance signal-to-noise ratios and correct for instrumental variations [57].
• Pattern Recognition: Identification of characteristic spectral signatures associated with specific MRD cell types amidst complex biological backgrounds [57] [58].
• Predictive Modeling: Correlation of spectral patterns with clinical outcomes, enabling risk stratification and treatment response prediction [57].
• Workflow Optimization: AI-guided design of SERS substrates and experimental parameters to maximize detection sensitivity and specificity [57] [6].

Integrated Platform Architectures and Experimental Methodologies

SERS-Microfluidics Integration Modalities

Integrated SERS-microfluidics platforms for MRD detection implement two primary sensing modalities:

Label-Free SERS Detection This approach directly measures intrinsic SERS spectra from target molecules or cells without additional labeling [58].

Experimental Protocol:

• Substrate Fabrication: Create plasmonic nanostructures (e.g., Au/Ag nanoparticle arrays, nanostars) directly on microchannel surfaces using in-situ synthesis, immobilization of colloidal nanoparticles, or nanoimprint lithography [57] [58].
• Sample Introduction: Inject blood or bone marrow aspirate (typically 100-500 µL) into microfluidic inlet port [58].
• Cell Separation: Implement on-chip enrichment of target cells using affinity capture (antibody-functionalized surfaces), size-based sorting (deterministic lateral displacement), or dielectric properties (dielectrophoresis) [58].
• SERS Measurement: Focus laser (typically 532 nm, 633 nm, or 785 nm) through optically transparent window onto captured cells, collecting spectra with integration times of 0.1-10 seconds [58].
• Data Acquisition: Record multiple spectra (typically 10-50) from different locations within the detection region to account for cellular heterogeneity [58].

SERS-Tag-Based Detection This approach uses antibody-functionalized nanoparticles with strong Raman reporter molecules for highly specific molecular profiling [58].

Experimental Protocol:

• SERS-Tag Preparation: Synthesize Au/Ag nanoparticles (typically 30-80 nm) and adsorb Raman reporter molecules (e.g., malachite green, 4-aminothiophenol) onto surface, then conjugate with specific antibodies against MRD markers (e.g., CD34, CD117 for AML) [58].
• Sample Preprocessing: Incubate clinical sample (100-500 µL blood/bone marrow) with SERS-tags (1-10 nM final concentration) for 15-60 minutes with gentle agitation [58].
• Microfluidic Processing: Introduce labeled sample into microfluidic device with integrated mixing and separation elements [58].
• Washing Steps: Implement on-chip washing using buffer streams or surface acoustic wave mixing to remove unbound SERS-tags [58].
• Detection and Quantification: Measure SERS signals from captured cells using mapping or flow-through detection, with specific spectral signatures indicating antibody binding and target cell presence [58].

Comparative Analysis of SERS-Based MRD Detection Modalities

Table 1: Comparison of SERS-Based MRD Detection Approaches

Parameter	Label-Free SERS	SERS-Tag-Based Detection	SERS-Microfluidics Integration
Sensitivity	Moderate (single-cell level)	High (potential for single-molecule detection)	Very high (10⁻⁶ or better)
Multiplexing Capacity	Limited by spectral overlap	High (5-10 plex with distinct Raman reporters)	Very high (theoretical >15-plex)
Sample Preparation	Minimal	Extensive (labeling, washing)	Automated on-chip
Analysis Time	Minutes after cell capture	1-2 hours including labeling	<30 minutes total processing
Information Content	Intrinsic biochemical profile	Specific marker expression	Both biochemical and molecular data
Reproducibility	Moderate (cell-to-cell variation)	High (standardized tags)	High (automated workflow)
Cost	Lower	Higher (antibodies, reporters)	Moderate (initial device fabrication)

AI-Enhanced Data Analysis Workflow

The integration of AI transforms raw SERS data into clinically actionable MRD assessments through a multi-stage analytical pipeline:

Experimental Protocol for AI-Enhanced SERS Analysis:

• Data Preprocessing:
  • Apply Savitzky-Golay filtering (typically 2nd polynomial, 9-15 point window) to reduce noise while preserving spectral features [57].
  • Implement asymmetric least squares baseline correction (λ=10⁵, p=0.01) to remove fluorescence background [57].
  • Normalize spectra to unit vector length or internal standard (e.g., silicon peak at 520 cm⁻¹) [57].

• Feature Engineering:

  • Extract intensity values at specific wavenumbers corresponding to biomolecular fingerprints (e.g., 720 cm⁻¹ phospholipids, 1004 cm⁻¹ phenylalanine, 1650 cm⁻¹ amide I) [57].
  • Apply principal component analysis (PCA) to reduce dimensionality while preserving >95% variance [57].
  • Generate higher-level features through peak area ratios, spectral distances, or wavelet coefficients [57].

• Model Training and Validation:

  • Implement supervised learning algorithms (support vector machines, random forests, neural networks) using training datasets with known MRD status [57].
  • Employ k-fold cross-validation (typically k=5-10) to assess model performance and prevent overfitting [57].
  • Validate models on independent test sets not used during training, reporting sensitivity, specificity, and area under ROC curve [57].

Performance Metrics and Technical Specifications

Analytical Performance of Integrated Platforms

The combination of SERS, microfluidics, and AI enables exceptional performance characteristics for MRD detection:

Table 2: Performance Comparison of MRD Detection Technologies

Technology	Sensitivity	Multiplexing Capacity	Turnaround Time	Key Applications
Flow Cytometry	10⁻⁴ to 10⁻⁵	8-12 colors	3-4 hours	Hematological malignancies [1] [26]
PCR-based	10⁻⁵ to 10⁻⁶	Limited (1-3 targets)	6-8 hours	Known genetic abnormalities [1] [26]
NGS-based	10⁻⁵ to 10⁻⁶	High (hundreds of genes)	5-7 days	Comprehensive genomic profiling [1] [26]
SERS-Microfluidics-AI	Potentially 10⁻⁶	High (5-15 plex)	<30 minutes	Broad applicability including solid tumors [57] [58]

Key Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for SERS-Based MRD Detection

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function	Technical Considerations
Plasmonic Nanoparticles	Gold nanospheres (30-80 nm), silver nanotriangles, Au@Ag core-shell	SERS signal amplification	Size, shape, and composition tune plasmon resonance [57] [58]
Raman Reporters	Malachite green, 4-aminothiophenol, 4-nitrothiophenol	Generate strong, characteristic SERS signals	Photostability, binding chemistry, spectral distinctness [58]
Surface Functionalization	Thiol-PEG-COOH, streptavidin-biotin, silane coupling agents	Interface between nanoparticles and biological recognition elements	Stability, orientation, non-fouling properties [58]
Recognition Elements	Anti-CD34, anti-CD19, anti-CD33 antibodies, aptamers	Specific molecular targeting of MRD cells	Affinity, specificity, cross-reactivity [58] [26]
Microfluidic Materials	PDMS, PMMA, glass substrates with surface treatments	Device fabrication and fluid handling	Biocompatibility, optical properties, manufacturing scalability [58]

Validation and Clinical Translation

Analytical Validation Framework

Robust validation of SERS-microfluidics-AI platforms for MRD detection requires comprehensive assessment:

Analytical Sensitivity and Specificity:

• Limit of Detection (LOD): Determine using serial dilutions of known cancer cell lines (e.g., HL-60, K562) spiked into normal peripheral blood mononuclear cells, with target LOD of 1 cancer cell in 10⁶ normal cells [26].
• Precision: Evaluate repeatability (within-run) and reproducibility (between-run, between-operator, between-lot) with coefficient of variation <15% for quantitative measurements [59].
• Linearity and Dynamic Range: Assess using reference materials across clinically relevant range (10⁻² to 10⁻⁶) [59].

Clinical Concordance Studies:

• Compare platform performance against established MRD detection methods (flow cytometry, NGS) using paired clinical samples [59] [26].
• Evaluate concordance rates with 95% confidence intervals, targeting >90% agreement with validated methods [59].

Clinical Utility and Implementation Considerations

The translation of integrated platforms to clinical practice requires addressing several practical aspects:

Sample Requirements and Handling:

• Sample Volume: Target ≤5 mL peripheral blood or ≤2 mL bone marrow aspirate to enable minimal invasion [59] [26].
• Sample Stability: Define acceptable pre-analytical conditions (time-to-processing, temperature, anticoagulants) [59].

Regulatory and Quality Considerations:

• Implement quality control measures including positive and negative controls with each run [59].
• Establish acceptance criteria for substrate performance, reagent quality, and instrumental calibration [58].

Clinical Workflow Integration:

• Target turnaround time <6 hours from sample receipt to result reporting to inform clinical decision-making [26].
• Develop automated result interpretation algorithms with clear clinical decision points (e.g., MRD-positive vs. MRD-negative thresholds) [57] [26].

Future Directions and Development Opportunities

The field of SERS-microfluidics-AI platforms for MRD detection continues to evolve with several promising research directions:

• Multimodal Integration: Combining SERS with complementary detection methods (electrochemical, fluorescence) to provide orthogonal verification and expanded analytical capabilities [58].
• Point-of-Care Adaptation: Development of compact, portable systems suitable for deployment in resource-limited settings through miniaturization of optical components and simplified fluidic handling [58].
• Expanded Biomarker Panels: Identification and validation of novel MRD markers, particularly for solid tumors where current technologies face significant limitations [6] [59].
• Longitudinal Monitoring Applications: Implementation of automated, high-frequency MRD monitoring schemes enabled by the minimal invasiveness and rapid turnaround of integrated platforms [59] [26].

The integration of microfluidics, SERS, and AI represents a paradigm shift in MRD detection capabilities, offering the potential for unprecedented sensitivity, multiplexing capacity, and analytical speed. As these platforms continue to mature through rigorous validation and refinement, they hold significant promise for transforming cancer management through earlier detection of treatment failure, more precise risk stratification, and ultimately, improved patient outcomes.

Navigating MRD Challenges: Standardization, Pitfalls, and Technical Hurdles

Sensitivity and Specificity Limits of Current Methodologies

Minimal residual disease (MRD), also referred to as molecular residual disease, describes the presence of small numbers of cancer cells that persist in patients after treatment, often at levels undetectable by traditional imaging or morphological examination [1] [12]. In the context of hematological malignancies and solid tumors, MRD represents a latent reservoir of disease that can ultimately lead to relapse [1]. The detection and monitoring of MRD have emerged as critical components in cancer management, providing invaluable prognostic information, guiding treatment decisions, and enabling risk stratification [1] [60].

The clinical significance of MRD detection lies in its powerful predictive value for disease recurrence and patient survival outcomes. Research consistently demonstrates that MRD-positive status correlates with significantly higher risks of relapse and poorer overall survival across multiple cancer types, including acute lymphoblastic leukemia, multiple myeloma, colorectal cancer, and non-small cell lung cancer [1] [46] [61]. Consequently, sensitive MRD detection has become increasingly integrated into clinical trials as a biomarker for evaluating drug efficacy and informing adaptive treatment strategies [12].

This technical review examines the sensitivity and specificity limits of current MRD detection methodologies, focusing on their technical principles, performance characteristics, and applications within cancer research and drug development.

Key Methodologies and Performance Characteristics

Comparative Analysis of MRD Detection Platforms

Table 1: Performance Characteristics of Current MRD Detection Methodologies

Methodology	Sensitivity Range	Specificity Considerations	Primary Applications	Technical Limitations
Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS)	10⁻² to 10⁻⁶ [1]	High; can be affected by clonal hematopoiesis [12]	Comprehensive detection of clonal rearrangements and somatic mutations across hematological and solid tumors [1] [12]	Complex data analysis, high cost, requires diagnostic pretreatment sample [1]
Flow Cytometry (FCM)	10⁻³ to 10⁻⁶ (depending on colors) [1]	Moderate; limited by immunophenotypic shifts [1] [46]	Real-time MRD detection in hematological malignancies [1] [60]	Requires fresh cells, operator-dependent, antigen expression changes [1] [46]
Quantitative PCR (qPCR)	10⁻⁴ to 10⁻⁶ [1]	High for specific targets [1]	Monitoring known genetic abnormalities (e.g., fusion genes, IgH/TCR rearrangements) [1]	Limited to predefined targets, may miss clonal evolution [1] [46]
Droplet Digital PCR (ddPCR)	~0.001% MAF [12]	High for specific mutations [12]	Absolute quantification of target DNA sequences [12]	Restricted to predefined mutations, limited multiplexing capability [12]
PhasED-Seq	<1 part per million [62]	High; utilizes phased variants to reduce noise [12]	Ultra-sensitive MRD detection in lymphomas and solid tumors [62]	Emerging technology, limited clinical validation [62]

Emerging Technologies and Enhanced Sensitivity Approaches

Table 2: Emerging Platforms and Their Sensitivity Enhancements

Platform/Technology	Sensitivity Limit	Core Innovation	Cancer Type Applications
MAESTRO (Broad Institute)	<1 part per million [63]	Whole-genome sequencing with optimized detection algorithms [63]	Solid tumors, colorectal cancer [63]
Signatera (Natera)	0.001–0.02% LOD [12]	Tumor-informed, amplicon-based targeted NGS [12]	Solid tumors, clinical trial endpoints [50] [12]
RaDaR (Inivata/NeoGenomics)	0.001–0.02% LOD [12]	Tumor-informed approach targeting multiple patient-specific mutations [12]	Breast, lung, and head/neck cancers [50] [12]
NeXT Personal (Personalis)	0.0001% tumor fraction [12]	Whole-genome based tumor-informed platform with broad coverage [12]	Solid tumors, immuno-oncology trials [50]
Foresight CLARITY (PhasED-Seq)	<1 part per million [62]	Phased variant enrichment to detect extremely low-frequency ctDNA [12] [62]	DLBCL, solid tumors [62]

Methodological Approaches and Experimental Protocols

Tumor-Informed vs. Tumor-Naïve Methodologies

The fundamental methodological divide in MRD detection lies between tumor-informed and tumor-naïve (tumor-agnostic) approaches, each with distinct technical and practical considerations for research applications [12].

Tumor-Informed Approaches require prior sequencing of tumor tissue, typically through whole-genome sequencing (WGS), whole-exome sequencing (WES), or large NGS panels [12]. This initial profiling identifies patient-specific mutations that are subsequently tracked in longitudinal plasma samples using customized assays. The key advantage of this approach is enhanced specificity, as it focuses on true tumor-derived mutations, minimizing false positives from clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) [12]. Platforms employing this methodology include Signatera, RaDaR, and ArcherDX PCM, which typically achieve limits of detection (LoD) between 0.001–0.02% [12]. More advanced WGS-based platforms like MRDetect, C2-Intelligence, and NeXT Personal offer broader genomic coverage (>1000 targetable variants in plasma) and leverage computational algorithms to achieve exceptional sensitivity as low as 0.0001% tumor fraction [12].

Tumor-Naïve Approaches utilize blood-based assays without prior tumor sequencing, instead relying on predefined panels of recurrent cancer-associated genomic or epigenomic alterations [12]. These universal panels offer practical advantages including faster turnaround times, lower costs, and broader applicability [12]. However, the lack of individualization may reduce sensitivity, as patient-specific mutations unique to heterogeneous tumors may be missed [12]. These platforms employ either amplicon-based methods (InVisionFirst-Lung, SafeSeqS, SiMSen-Seq, Oncomine cfDNA Assay) with LoD of 0.07–0.33% mutant allele frequency (MAF), or hybrid capture-based methods like Guardant Reveal [12].

Diagram 1: MRD Methodological Approaches Workflow

Detailed Experimental Protocol: NGS-Based MRD Detection

The following protocol outlines the standardized methodology for NGS-based MRD detection, as implemented in platforms such as the FDA-cleared clonoSEQ assay and widely used in research settings for hematological malignancies [1] [46].

Sample Preparation and DNA Extraction

• Bone marrow aspirates or peripheral blood samples: Collect 4-8 mL in EDTA tubes, process within 24-48 hours with density gradient centrifugation for mononuclear cell separation [46].
• DNA extraction: Use commercial kits (QIAamp DNA Blood Mini Kit, Maxwell RSC Blood DNA Kit) to extract high-molecular-weight DNA [46]. Assess DNA quality via spectrophotometry (A260/A280 ratio 1.8-2.0) and fluorometry, with minimum requirement of 3-5 μg DNA for library preparation [46].
• Cell-free DNA extraction from plasma: For liquid biopsy applications, collect blood in Streck or CellSave tubes, perform double centrifugation (1600×g for 10 min, 16000×g for 10 min), extract cfDNA using specialized kits (QIAamp Circulating Nucleic Acid Kit, MagMAX Cell-Free DNA Isolation Kit) [12].

Library Preparation and Sequencing

• Amplification primer design: Design primers targeting immunoglobulin (Ig) and T-cell receptor (TCR) gene rearrangements (IGH, IGK, IGL, TRB, TRG), incorporating unique molecular identifiers (UMIs) to correct for PCR amplification bias and sequencing errors [46].
• Multiplex PCR amplification: Perform amplification using 50-100 ng DNA, 25-35 cycles with optimized annealing temperatures specific to primer sets [46].
• Library purification and quantification: Use AMPure XP bead-based cleanup, quantify with Qubit dsDNA HS Assay Kit, and assess quality via Bioanalyzer or TapeStation [46].
• Sequencing: Utilize Illumina platforms (MiSeq, NextSeq) with 2×150 bp or 2×300 bp paired-end runs, targeting minimum 500,000 reads per sample for sensitivity of 10⁻⁶ [46].

Bioinformatic Analysis

• Sequence alignment and error correction: Process raw FASTQ files using UMI-based error correction, align to IMGT reference sequences with tools like MiXCR and IgBLAST [46].
• Clonality assessment: Identify rearranged sequences present at frequencies significantly above background, establish diagnostic clone tracking list with minimum 2-3 dominant rearrangements per patient [46].
• Quantitative reporting: Calculate molecules per microliter for each tracked clone, with positivity threshold typically set at 0.0001% (10⁻⁶) [46].

Technical Considerations for Sensitivity Optimization

Achieving optimal sensitivity in MRD detection requires addressing several technical challenges:

• Sample quality: Degraded DNA or insufficient input material significantly impacts sensitivity, potentially reducing it by 1-2 logs [46].
• Sequencing depth: Sensitivity of 10⁻⁶ typically requires minimum 500,000-1,000,000 reads for NGS methods, with deeper sequencing enabling higher sensitivity [46].
• Background error rate: Implementation of UMIs and duplicate removal algorithms reduces background errors, enabling more reliable detection of low-frequency variants [12].
• Clonal evolution: Tracking multiple rearrangements or mutations accounts for potential immunophenotypic or genetic evolution that could lead to false negatives if only a single marker is monitored [46].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for MRD Detection

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Research Application	Performance Considerations
Nucleic Acid Extraction Kits	QIAamp DNA Blood Mini Kit, Maxwell RSC Blood DNA Kit, QIAamp Circulating Nucleic Acid Kit [46]	Isolation of high-quality DNA from various sample types	Purity and yield critical for sensitivity; specialized kits needed for cfDNA [12] [46]
Library Preparation Kits	Illumina TruSeq DNA PCR-Free, Archer VariantPlex, Oncomine Pan-Cancer Cell-Free Assay [50] [12]	Preparation of sequencing libraries from extracted DNA	UMI incorporation essential for error correction; compatibility with NGS platform [12]
PCR Reagents	Q5 High-Fidelity DNA Polymerase, AmpliTaq Gold DNA Polymerase [46]	Amplification of target sequences	High-fidelity enzymes reduce amplification errors; optimized for multiplex reactions [46]
Sequencing Kits	MiSeq Reagent Kit v3, NextSeq 500/550 High Output Kit v2.5 [46]	NGS platform-specific sequencing	Read length and output must match assay requirements [46]
Probe/Primer Panels	EuroClonality-NGS primer sets, Ion AmpliSeq panels, IDT xGen Panels [12] [46]	Target enrichment for specific genomic regions	Coverage uniformity impacts sensitivity; must include appropriate controls [46]

Signaling Pathways and Biological Considerations

The biological context of MRD significantly influences detection strategy selection and interpretation. In hematological malignancies, tracking immunoglobulin (Ig) and T-cell receptor (TCR) gene rearrangements provides highly specific clonal markers due to the natural process of V(D)J recombination, which generates unique sequences for each lymphocyte clone [46]. This approach is particularly valuable in B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL), where IGH rearrangements serve as primary markers in NGS panels with demonstrated prognostic value [46].

In solid tumors, MRD detection typically focuses on somatic mutations in driver genes, epigenetic alterations, or chromosomal abnormalities [12]. The technological challenge lies in the exceptionally low concentration of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in early-stage disease or post-treatment settings, where it can constitute as little as 0.01–0.1% of total cell-free DNA [12]. This biological constraint necessitates extremely sensitive detection methods capable of identifying these rare molecules amid abundant background DNA.

Diagram 2: Biological Factors in MRD Detection

The landscape of MRD detection methodologies has evolved significantly, with sensitivity limits now reaching parts per million levels through advanced technologies like PhasED-Seq and whole-genome sequencing approaches [12] [62]. These ultra-sensitive methods are transforming MRD from a research tool into a clinical standard, enabling earlier detection of residual disease and more personalized treatment approaches [50].

The fundamental trade-off between sensitivity and specificity remains a central consideration in methodological selection. Tumor-informed approaches generally offer superior sensitivity and specificity for tracking known clones but require tumor sequencing and custom assay development [12]. Tumor-naïve methods provide broader accessibility and faster turnaround but may sacrifice some sensitivity, particularly for heterogeneous tumors [12].

For researchers and drug development professionals, these advancing MRD technologies offer powerful tools for evaluating therapeutic efficacy in clinical trials, identifying patients at highest relapse risk, and guiding treatment intensification or de-escalation strategies [61]. As standardization improves and costs decrease, MRD detection is poised to become increasingly integrated into cancer research and clinical practice, ultimately contributing to improved patient outcomes across a broadening spectrum of malignancies.

Measurable residual disease (MRD) has emerged as a profoundly powerful biomarker in hematologic malignancies and, increasingly, in solid tumors, providing sensitivity for detecting residual cancer cells that far surpasses traditional morphological or radiological assessments [18]. MRD refers to the small population of malignant cells that persist after treatment in patients who have achieved clinical and hematological remission, representing a latent reservoir of disease that can lead to relapse [1]. The detection and quantification of MRD provides critical insights into treatment efficacy, with MRD negativity consistently correlating with superior progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) across numerous cancer types [18] [26]. For instance, in acute myeloid leukemia (AML), MRD-negative patients show a 5-year overall survival of 68% compared to only 34% for MRD-positive patients [18] [26]. Similarly, meta-analyses in multiple myeloma demonstrate that MRD negativity correlates with significantly improved PFS (HR 0.33) and OS (HR 0.45) [18].

Despite this robust prognostic value, the full potential of MRD as a clinical tool remains hampered by significant standardization gaps in detection protocols and interpretation criteria. These heterogeneities present substantial challenges for comparing results across studies, establishing universal clinical decision thresholds, and integrating MRD monitoring into routine cancer management [18] [64]. This technical review examines the current landscape of MRD assessment methodologies, identifies critical standardization gaps, details experimental protocols for consistent implementation, and discusses pathways toward harmonized interpretation criteria to support drug development and clinical translation.

The Technological Landscape of MRD Detection

Multiple techniques have been developed for MRD detection, each with distinct operating characteristics, sensitivities, and limitations. The most commonly employed methodologies include multiparameter flow cytometry (MFC), polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based methods, and next-generation sequencing (NGS). The sensitivity and applicability of these techniques vary considerably, as detailed in Table 1.

Table 1: Comparison of Major MRD Detection Methodologies

Platform	Applicability	Sensitivity	Key Advantages	Major Limitations
Multiparameter Flow Cytometry (MFC)	Nearly 100% for hematologic malignancies [1]	10-3 to 10-6, depending on coloring [1] [65]	Rapid turnaround; wide applicability; relatively inexpensive [1]	Lack of standardization; subjective interpretation; phenotypic shifts [18] [1]
Real-time Quantitative PCR (qPCR)	~40-50% [1]	10-4 to 10-6 [1]	High sensitivity for specific targets; standardized for certain fusions [18]	Limited to known targets; requires pre-identified markers [1]
Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS)	>95% [1]	10-2 to 10-6 [1]	Comprehensive mutation profiling; clonal evolution tracking [26]	High cost; complex data analysis; lack of standardization [1]
Droplet Digital PCR (ddPCR)	Target-dependent	Up to 0.001% MAF [12]	Absolute quantification without standard curves; high sensitivity [65]	Limited to predefined mutations; not suitable for unknown targets [12]

The divergence in sensitivity and specificity across these platforms creates fundamental challenges for comparing MRD results across different laboratories and clinical trials. This methodological heterogeneity is further compounded by differences in sample processing, timing of assessment, and data interpretation criteria [64]. For instance, while MFC offers nearly universal applicability for hematologic malignancies, its sensitivity can range from 10^-3 to 10^-6 depending on the number of colors used and the standardization of antibody panels [1]. Similarly, NGS-based methods provide exquisite sensitivity (up to 10^-6) and the ability to track clonal evolution, but they remain limited by high costs, complex bioinformatic requirements, and insufficient standardization across platforms [1] [26].

Standardization Initiatives and Persistent Gaps

Significant efforts have been launched by international consortia to address methodological heterogeneity in MRD detection, with notable successes in specific disease contexts. The EuroFlow Consortium has established standardized MFC protocols for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and multiple myeloma, developing standardized antibody panels and analytical approaches to improve reproducibility across laboratories [18]. For multiple myeloma, the EuroFlow next-generation flow (NGF) approach is regarded as the MFC gold standard according to International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) guidelines, achieving sensitivities of 10^-5 to 10^-6 through standardized 8-color antibody panels and automated analysis tools [18] [65].

Similarly, the EuroMRD consortium (formerly known as ESG-MRD-ALL) has focused on standardizing molecular MRD assessment in ALL and lymphoma, with participation from 71 laboratories across 27 countries [18]. Their interpretation guidelines form the basis for molecular MRD quantification in most non-American clinical trials for ALL in both pediatric and adult populations [18]. These standardization efforts have proven particularly successful in malignancies with well-defined, conserved molecular alterations. In acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) detection of PML-RARα and BCR-ABL1 fusion transcripts, respectively, has been successfully integrated into treatment algorithms to guide therapy duration and predict relapse [18].

Despite these advances, critical standardization gaps persist, particularly in genetically heterogeneous malignancies like AML. As noted in recent literature, "Although these consortia have greatly advanced MRD harmonization in lymphoid malignancies, comparable standardization in AML remains an unmet need" [18]. The heterogeneity extends beyond technical protocols to fundamental questions about optimal timing for MRD assessment, appropriate biological specimens (peripheral blood versus bone marrow), and clinical decision thresholds that should trigger intervention [18] [64].

Table 2: Key Standardization Gaps in MRD Assessment Across Hematologic Malignancies

Domain	Current Status	Standardization Gaps
Methodological Protocols	Disease-specific standardization (e.g., ALL, CLL, MM) [18]	Limited standardization for AML; technique-specific variations [18]
Timing of Assessment	Variable timepoints across studies and clinical practice [66]	No consensus on optimal timing; disease-specific differences [18]
Specimen Requirements	Bone marrow preferred for most applications [18]	Inconsistent use of peripheral blood; variable sample volumes [64]
Interpretation Criteria	Binary (positive/negative) reporting common [64]	Variable thresholds (10-3 to 10-6); limited quantitative reporting [64]
Quality Assurance	Limited proficiency testing programs [64]	No universal standards for assay validation; variable controls [64]

The statistical challenges associated with MRD test interpretation further complicate standardization efforts. As noted by researchers, "Using binary readouts from MRD tests has several statistical issues besides decreased sensitivity and specificity including decreased power, under-estimation of variation in outcome between groups, and inability to identify any linear relationships with outcomes" [64]. This oversimplification fails to capture the continuous nature of MRD dynamics and may obscure important relationships between MRD levels and clinical outcomes.

Experimental Protocols for Standardized MRD Assessment

Next-Generation Flow Cytometry for Multiple Myeloma

The EuroFlow Consortium has developed a standardized protocol for high-sensitivity MFC in multiple myeloma, achieving reproducibility across laboratories and sensitivities of 10^-5 to 10^-6 [18] [65].

Methodology:

• Sample Preparation: Bone marrow aspirates collected in EDTA or heparin tubes; mononuclear cells isolated within 24 hours using Ficoll density gradient centrifugation [65].
• Staining Protocol: Two eight-color antibody tubes utilized:
  • Tube 1: CD138/CD27/CD38/CD56/CD45/CD19/CD117/CD81
  • Tube 2: CD138/CD27/CD38/CD56/CD45/CD19/CyIgκ/CyIgλ [65]
• Instrument Setup: Standardized instrument calibration using EuroFlow calibration standards; identical photomultiplier tube voltages across flow cytometers [65].
• Data Acquisition: Minimum of 5 × 10⁶ nucleated cells acquired to ensure sensitivity of 10^-6 [65].
• Analysis Approach: Automated analysis using EuroFlow data analysis software with minimal manual adjustment; plasma cells identified via CD138 and CD38 expression with exclusion of normal plasma cells (CD19+/CD56-) and basophils (CD45-) [65].

This standardized approach has demonstrated excellent correlation with NGS-based methods and provides a robust framework for MRD assessment in clinical trials [65].

NGS-Based MRD Detection in Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia

The clonoSEQ assay (Adaptive Biotechnologies), an FDA-cleared NGS-based method, detects MRD via sequencing of immunoglobulin (Ig) and T-cell receptor (TCR) gene rearrangements in ALL, CLL, and multiple myeloma [26].

Methodology:

• Sample Requirements: DNA from diagnostic sample (≥3μg recommended) and follow-up bone marrow or peripheral blood samples (≥8mL) [26].
• Library Preparation: Multiplex PCR amplification of IgH, IgK, IgL, TCRβ, TCRγ, and TCRδ gene rearrangements using consensus primers; incorporation of unique molecular identifiers (UMIs) to distinguish true somatic mutations from PCR errors [26].
• Sequencing: High-throughput sequencing on Illumina platforms; minimum coverage of 1-2 million reads per sample [26].
• Bioinformatic Analysis:
  • Identification of dominant clonotypes from diagnostic sample
  • Tracking of these clonotypes in subsequent samples
  • Statistical determination of detection sensitivity based on sample cellularity and sequencing depth [26]
• Sensitivity Threshold: Achieves sensitivity of 10^-6 (one cancer cell per million normal cells) with adequate sample input [26].

This method offers advantages in tracking multiple clonotypes and monitoring clonal evolution, though it requires sophisticated bioinformatics and remains costly for routine implementation [26].

Tumor-Informed ctDNA Analysis for Solid Tumors

In solid tumors, MRD detection primarily utilizes circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis through tumor-informed approaches. The Signatera assay (Natera) represents a prominent example of this methodology [12].

Methodology:

• Tumor Sequencing: Whole exome sequencing of tumor tissue to identify 16-50 patient-specific somatic single nucleotide variants (SNVs) [12].
• Custom Panel Design: Development of patient-specific multiplex PCR panel targeting identified variants [12].
• Plasma Analysis:
  • Cell-free DNA extraction from plasma samples (recommended volume: 10-20mL)
  • Library preparation using custom primers
  • Sequencing on Illumina platforms [12]
• Variant Calling:
  • Unique molecular identifiers (UMIs) to correct for PCR errors and sequencing artifacts
  • Phasing of adjacent SNVs to enhance specificity
  • Calculation of tumor molecules per milliliter of plasma [12]
• Sensitivity: Achieves limit of detection of 0.001% variant allele frequency [12].

This tumor-informed approach minimizes false positives from clonal hematopoiesis and provides high sensitivity for MRD detection in solid tumors, though it requires tumor tissue and has longer turnaround times [12].

Analytical Framework for MRD Data Interpretation

The interpretation of MRD data presents significant challenges that extend beyond technical detection to statistical and clinical considerations. A critical issue in MRD assessment is the common reduction of continuous quantitative data into binary positive/negative categories, which results in substantial loss of information and statistical power [64]. As researchers have noted, "Using binary readouts from MRD tests has several statistical issues besides decreased sensitivity and specificity including decreased power, under-estimation of variation in outcome between groups (persons with very low-level positive MRD test levels may be outcome-wise closer to MRD test-negative persons than those who test high-level MRD positive), and inability to identify any linear relationships with outcomes" [64].

The statistical performance characteristics of MRD tests must be carefully considered in both assay development and clinical interpretation. Key metrics include:

• Sensitivity: True positive rate - proportion of true positives that are correctly identified as MRD positive [64]
• Specificity: True negative rate - proportion of true negatives that are correctly identified as MRD negative [64]
• Positive Predictive Value (PPV): Proportion of positive test results that represent true positives [64]
• Negative Predictive Value (NPV): Proportion of negative test results that represent true negatives [64]

These metrics are influenced not only by the technical performance of the assay but also by the prevalence of MRD in the tested population and the clinical context in which testing is performed [64].

Diagram 1: MRD Data Interpretation Approaches

The diagram above illustrates the critical divergence in MRD data interpretation strategies. While binary classification remains common practice, it results in significant information loss and oversimplified risk stratification. In contrast, quantitative approaches that treat MRD as a continuous variable enable more sophisticated modeling, risk-adapted thresholds, and kinetic analysis that ultimately support refined clinical decision-making [64].

Beyond single timepoint assessments, MRD kinetics provide valuable prognostic information. Research demonstrates that the rate of MRD clearance and the depth of response at specific treatment milestones offer enhanced predictive power compared to static assessments [18] [26]. For instance, in ALL, patients achieving early MRD negativity (within 1.5 months of therapy) demonstrated 100% two-year relapse-free survival compared to only 38% for those remaining MRD positive [26]. Similarly, in multiple myeloma, the magnitude of MRD reduction following autologous stem cell transplantation serves as a key indicator of treatment efficacy, with patients achieving MRD < 10^-6 experiencing superior outcomes [29].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Standardized MRD assessment requires carefully validated reagents and materials to ensure reproducibility across laboratories and studies. The following table details essential research solutions for implementing robust MRD detection protocols.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for MRD Detection

Category	Specific Examples	Function & Application	Technical Considerations
Standardized Antibody Panels	EuroFlow 8-color tubes for multiple myeloma [65]	Identification of leukemia-associated immunophenotypes (LAIPs); standardized surface marker detection	Lot-to-lot validation required; panel design must cover disease-specific markers
PCR/NGS Reagents	ClonoSEQ assay primers and reagents [26]	Amplification and detection of Ig/TCR gene rearrangements or somatic mutations	Unique molecular identifiers (UMIs) essential for error correction; requires optimization of cycling conditions
Reference Standards	Cell lines with known mutation burden; synthetic DNA controls [64]	Assay calibration; sensitivity determination; inter-laboratory comparison	Should mimic sample matrix; multiple dilution points needed for sensitivity claims
Sample Collection Materials	EDTA or heparin tubes; cell stabilization solutions [65]	Preservation of sample integrity; prevention of analyte degradation	Strict time-to-processing requirements; temperature control during transport
Bioinformatic Tools	EuroFlow data analysis software; clonoSEQ analysis pipeline [18] [26]	Automated data interpretation; standardized gating or variant calling	Computational infrastructure requirements; validation against manual analysis

The implementation of standardized reagents must be accompanied by rigorous validation procedures, including determination of limit of detection (LOD), limit of quantification (LOQ), precision, reproducibility, and linearity across the reportable range [64]. For cell-based assays like MFC, the use of standardized biological controls with known antigen expression patterns is essential for instrument calibration and inter-laboratory comparability [18] [65].

The standardization of MRD detection protocols and interpretation criteria represents a critical frontier in precision oncology, with profound implications for drug development, clinical trial design, and patient management. While significant progress has been achieved through international consortia in specific disease domains, substantial heterogeneity persists in methodological approaches, timing of assessment, and analytical frameworks across hematologic malignancies and solid tumors.

Addressing these gaps requires a multi-faceted approach:

• Enhanced Collaboration: Expanded efforts by international consortia to establish disease-specific technical standards, particularly for malignancies like AML where standardization lags behind lymphoid malignancies [18]
• Statistical Innovation: Development of more sophisticated analytical approaches that treat MRD as a continuous, dynamic variable rather than a binary outcome, enabling more nuanced risk stratification and kinetic analysis [64]
• Integrated Biomarker Strategies: Combination of MRD with other biomarkers (genetic mutations, immune profiling) to create multidimensional response assessment frameworks that better predict clinical outcomes [18] [12]
• Clinical Trial Integration: Incorporation of standardized MRD assessment as an endpoint in clinical trials to establish its utility as a surrogate for survival outcomes and support regulatory acceptance [18] [29]

As the field evolves, the successful standardization of MRD monitoring will require close collaboration between academic researchers, diagnostic companies, regulatory agencies, and clinical practitioners. Only through such coordinated efforts can we realize the full potential of MRD as a precision medicine tool capable of guiding therapeutic decisions and improving patient outcomes across the spectrum of malignant diseases.

Minimal residual disease (MRD) represents a critical reservoir of therapy-resistant cells that drives relapse in hematologic malignancies and solid tumors. Despite achieving clinical complete remission, characterized by the cytomorphological detection of less than 5% blasts in bone marrow, many patients ultimately relapse due to persistent, undetectable malignant cells [1]. The detection of MRD has emerged as a pivotal biomarker, providing profound prognostic information that surpasses traditional morphological assessment [3] [1]. This latent disease reservoir is maintained by a complex interplay of genetic and non-genetic adaptation mechanisms, including antigen escape and clonal shift, which pose formidable challenges to durable treatment responses [67] [68]. Understanding these dynamic evolutionary processes is essential for developing strategies to overcome therapeutic resistance.

The clinical significance of MRD detection is unequivocal. In acute myeloid leukemia (AML), MRD-positive patients experience significantly higher disease incidence and lower survival rates compared to their MRD-negative counterparts [1]. Continuous monitoring of MRD status during and after treatment has become a key prognostic factor, enabling risk stratification and guiding treatment adjustments [1]. Modern technologies, including next-generation sequencing (NGS) of circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA), have achieved sensitivities of up to 10⁻⁶, allowing for unprecedented tracking of residual disease burden and emerging resistance mechanisms [3] [1].

Mechanisms of Therapy Resistance

Genetic Evolution and Clonal Dynamics

Cancer cells employ diverse evolutionary strategies to circumvent therapeutic pressure. The "genes-first" pathway follows traditional Darwinian principles, where acquired gene mutations provide a selective advantage that drives clonal expansion under treatment pressure [67]. In contrast, the "phenotypes-first" pathway leverages inherent cellular plasticity, where genetically identical cells transition between different transcriptional states that confer temporary resistance, which may later become stabilized through genetic or epigenetic changes [67].

In favorable-risk AML, studies of paired diagnosis-relapse samples reveal that approximately 77% of relapses occur through re-emergence of the founding clone without significant genetic evolution, while 23% exhibit clear clonal evolution with changes in their mutation profile [69]. Notably, the specific patterns vary by molecular subtype: all core-binding factor AML and CEBPA-mutated AML cases showed mutational stability at relapse, whereas 36.5% of NPM1-mutated AML cases demonstrated clonal evolution, most frequently involving loss of NPM1 mutations or acquisition of DNMT3A and FLT3-ITD mutations [69].

Complex karyotype AML (CK-AML) exhibits particularly dramatic clonal dynamics. Single-cell multiomics analyses have identified three distinct patterns of clonal evolution in CK-AML:

• Monoclonal growth: A single dominant subclone with minimal cellular deviation
• Linear growth: Step-wise acquisition of structural variants across cells
• Branched polyclonal growth: Multiple distinct subclones with ongoing karyotype remodeling [70]

Notably, approximately 75% of CK-AML cases harbor multiple subclones that frequently display ongoing karyotype remodeling, contributing to extensive intratumoral heterogeneity and therapeutic resistance [70].

Table 1: Patterns of Genetic Evolution at Relapse in Favorable-Risk AML

Evolution Pattern	Frequency	Molecular Features	Impact on Survival
No Clonal Evolution	77%	Persistence of founding clone mutations	48.5% 5-year overall survival
Clonal Evolution	23%	Acquisition/loss of key driver mutations	16.7% 5-year overall survival
NPM1mut Subgroup Evolution	36.5%	Loss of NPM1mut, DNMT3A evolution, FLT3-ITD acquisition	Significantly shorter time to relapse

Phenotypic Plasticity and Antigen Escape

Beyond genetic evolution, non-genetic resistance mechanisms present a equally formidable challenge. Phenotypic plasticity enables cancer cells to dynamically alter their cell state in response to therapeutic pressure without acquiring permanent genetic alterations [67]. This adaptability is facilitated by epigenetic reprogramming and microenvironmental interactions that allow transitions between different phenotypic states [67] [71].

A clinically critical manifestation of phenotypic plasticity is antigen escape, particularly relevant to antibody-based immunotherapies. In multiple myeloma, prolonged exposure to anti-CD38 antibodies (daratumumab, isatuximab) can select for clones with genomic alterations that disrupt CD38 expression [68]. Comprehensive genomic analysis of relapsed samples revealed that 20% of patients exhibited loss of CD38 after therapy, with 6% showing biallelic disruption of the CD38 gene locus [68]. These biallelic events were entirely absent in newly diagnosed patients, confirming them as a therapy-driven resistance mechanism.

Functional studies on specific CD38 missense mutations revealed distinct resistance profiles:

• L153H and C275Y variants: Decreased binding affinity for both daratumumab and isatuximab
• R140G variant: Confered selective resistance to daratumumab while retaining sensitivity to isatuximab [68]

This mutation-specific resistance profile highlights the potential for switching anti-CD38 antibodies upon progression in selected cases.

Cancer Dormancy and MRD Persistence

Dormant cancer cells (DCCs) represent a crucial reservoir for MRD persistence and subsequent relapse. These cells enter a reversible cell cycle arrest (G0/G1 phase) that confers resistance to conventional therapies targeting rapidly dividing cells [71]. DCCs are characterized by metabolic adaptations, including reduced dependence on glycolysis and increased oxidative metabolism, which renders them invisible to standard imaging techniques like PET that rely on glucose uptake [71].

The maintenance of dormancy is regulated by both intrinsic factors, such as cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors (p27, p57, p21), and extrinsic signals from the tumor microenvironment [71]. Key regulators include:

• CDK-Rb-E2F cascade: A reversible molecular switch controlling quiescence entry and exit
• Extracellular matrix components: Laminins, COL17A1, and heparan sulfate promote growth arrest
• Microenvironmental factors: FGF and TGFβ2 induce dormancy regulators including p27 and NR2F1 [71]

Dormancy represents a therapeutic window for targeting MRD before awakending occurs, though this potential remains largely unrealized in clinical practice.

Advanced MRD Detection Methodologies

Circulating Cell-Free DNA (cfDNA) Analysis

Liquid biopsy approaches using cfDNA have emerged as powerful, minimally invasive tools for MRD monitoring. cfDNA is released through apoptotic or necrotic cell death, with levels significantly elevated in cancer patients compared to healthy individuals [3]. Technical advances now enable detection of leukemia-specific mutations in cfDNA at variant allele frequencies as low as 0.08% during hematological complete remission [3].

In patients after allogeneic stem cell transplantation, cfDNA-based MRD detection demonstrated superior sensitivity compared to donor chimerism analysis. Mutations were detected in 55.1% of cfDNA samples obtained when donor chimerism was ≥90%, with progression-free survival at 17 months significantly worse in mutation-positive patients (64% vs. 100% in MRD-negative patients) [3].

Table 2: Comparison of MRD Detection Methods

Method	Sensitivity	Advantages	Limitations
Cell Morphology	5% (10⁻¹)	Standardized, widely available	Low sensitivity
Flow Cytometry	10⁻⁴–10⁻⁶	Wide applicability, fast turnaround	Limited standardization
qPCR	10⁻⁴–10⁻⁶	High sensitivity, standardized	Limited to known targets
NGS (cfDNA)	10⁻²–10⁻⁶	Comprehensive, multiple targets	Complex data analysis, cost
NGS (Bone Marrow)	10⁻⁴–10⁻⁶	High sensitivity, broad mutational coverage	Invasive procedure

Single-Cell Multiomics Technologies

Advanced single-cell technologies now enable unprecedented resolution of clonal architecture and phenotypic heterogeneity. The scNOVA-CITE framework combines single-cell nucleosome occupancy with transcriptomic and surface protein profiling to link genotype to phenotype at single-cell resolution [70].

Experimental Protocol: Single-Cell Multiomics Analysis

• Sample Processing: Bone marrow or peripheral blood mononuclear cells are isolated and prepared for single-cell sequencing
• Library Preparation: Simultaneous preparation of Strand-seq libraries for genomic analysis and CITE-seq libraries for transcriptomic and surface protein analysis
• Sequencing: Libraries sequenced on appropriate platforms (Illumina MiSeq/NextSeq for Strand-seq; 150bp paired-end recommended)
• Data Integration: Computational integration of genetic, transcriptomic, and proteomic data using specialized bioinformatics pipelines (e.g., Archer Analysis, scTRIP)
• Clonal Reconstruction: Identification of subclones based on shared structural variants and phylogenetic relationship inference [70]

This approach has revealed extensive karyotypic heterogeneity in CK-AML, with individual cells harboring up to 63 structurally altered segments and ongoing chromosomal instability driven by breakage-fusion-bridge cycles and chromothripsis [70].

Single-Cell Multiomics Analysis Workflow

Therapeutic Strategies Against Evolutionary Resistance

Targeting Genetic Evolution

Understanding clonal evolutionary patterns enables more strategic treatment approaches. For diseases with predictable genes-first resistance mechanisms, such as chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) where specific BCR-ABL1 kinase domain mutations drive imatinib resistance, next-generation inhibitors (dasatinib, nilotinib, bosutinib) have been developed to overcome these mutations [67] [72].

In CK-AML, single-cell multiomics analysis of patient-derived xenografts has enabled identification of subclone-specific drug sensitivities, revealing opportunities for LSC-targeting therapies including BCL-xL inhibition [70]. This approach demonstrates the power of linking genetic subclones to functional therapeutic responses.

Counteracting Phenotypic Resistance and Antigen Escape

For phenotypes-first resistance and antigen escape, several strategies show promise:

• Therapeutic switching: For anti-CD38 resistance mediated by specific mutations, switching between antibody agents (e.g., daratumumab to isatuximab) may overcome mutation-specific resistance [68]
• Combination therapies: Simultaneous targeting of multiple pathways to preempt escape routes, such as combined CDK7 and BRD4 inhibition in multiple myeloma [73]
• Antigen-independent approaches: Development of therapies targeting invariant pathways or cellular effector mechanisms less susceptible to antigen loss

Therapeutic Decision-Making for Antigen Escape

Eradicating Dormant Persisters

Targeting dormant cancer cells requires distinct therapeutic approaches, as these cells are largely insensitive to conventional cytotoxic agents. Promising strategies include:

• Dormancy-breaking agents: Force quiescent cells into cell cycle to sensitize them to cytotoxic therapy
• Stem cell-directed therapies: Target core survival pathways specific to cancer stem cells
• Microenvironment modulation: Disrupt protective niches that maintain dormancy
• Immune-mediated clearance: Enhance immune recognition and elimination of dormant cells [71]

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Evolutionary Resistance Studies

Reagent/Technology	Primary Function	Research Application
ArcherDx VariantPlex Panels	Targeted NGS mutation detection	MRD monitoring in cfDNA and cellular samples
Single-cell multiomics platforms (scNOVA-CITE)	Simultaneous genomic, transcriptomic, and proteomic profiling	Clonal evolution analysis and phenotypic heterogeneity
Strand-seq technology	Haplotype-aware structural variant detection	Karyotype heterogeneity mapping in CK-AML
Patient-derived xenografts (PDX)	In vivo modeling of human cancers	Functional validation of subclone-specific drug responses
Optical genome mapping (OGM)	High-resolution chromosomal analysis	Validation of complex structural variants
CITE-seq antibodies	Multiplexed surface protein quantification	Correlation of phenotypic markers with genetic subclones

Overcoming antigen escape and clonal evolution requires a multifaceted approach that integrates advanced detection technologies with evolution-informed treatment strategies. The increasing resolution of single-cell multiomics provides unprecedented insight into the complex clonal architecture and phenotypic plasticity that underpin therapeutic resistance. Meanwhile, cfDNA-based MRD monitoring offers a minimally invasive window into dynamic evolutionary processes occurring during treatment.

Future progress will depend on developing therapeutic approaches that anticipate and preempt evolutionary escape routes, rather than reacting to established resistance. This will require deeper understanding of the molecular mechanisms driving both genetic and non-genetic resistance, and the development of clinical tools for real-time monitoring of evolutionary dynamics. As detection technologies continue to improve in sensitivity and accessibility, the vision of personalized, evolution-aware cancer therapy moves closer to clinical reality.

Minimal residual disease (MRD) refers to the small population of cancer cells that persist in patients after treatment, often at levels undetectable by conventional morphological methods [1]. In multiple myeloma (MM), accurate MRD assessment is critical for evaluating treatment response, predicting clinical outcomes, and guiding risk-adapted treatment strategies [74] [1]. The choice between bone marrow (BM) and peripheral blood (PB) as a sample source for MRD testing represents a significant methodological consideration with important implications for assay sensitivity, clinical utility, and patient burden [74]. This technical guide examines the comparative value of these sampling compartments within contemporary MRD detection research, focusing on analytical performance, clinical correlation, and practical implementation.

Technical Comparison of Sampling Compartments

Biological and Methodological Foundations

The bone marrow microenvironment serves as the primary site for plasma cell residence and proliferation in multiple myeloma, making it the traditional gold standard source for MRD assessment [75]. BM aspiration allows direct sampling of the disease reservoir, typically providing high-quality material for both next-generation sequencing (NGS) and flow cytometry analysis [74] [1]. In contrast, peripheral blood sampling offers an indirect assessment of disease burden through circulating tumor cells or cell-free DNA, with concentration levels generally lower than in paired BM samples [74].

The biological basis for using peripheral blood in MRD assessment stems from the understanding that myeloma cells circulate at low levels and may reflect the overall disease burden, particularly in more aggressive or advanced disease states [74]. Research indicates that the concentration of aberrant plasma cells in peripheral blood is typically approximately 1-2 logs lower than in paired bone marrow samples, creating fundamental differences in detection sensitivity between compartments [74].

Analytical Performance Characteristics

Table 1: Comparative Analytical Performance of BM vs. PB MRD Testing

Parameter	Bone Marrow (BM)	Peripheral Blood (PB)
Sensitivity with NGS	Up to 10-6 [74]	Up to 10-6 (theoretical), though practical sensitivity may be limited by lower tumor cell concentration [74]
Tumor Cell Concentration	Higher (direct sampling of disease reservoir) [74]	Lower (median log difference of 1.68 vs. BM) [74]
Sample Input	20μg DNA for NGS (∼3.4×106 cells) [74]	Median 1.9 million cells for NGS [74]
Agreement with Paired Sample	Gold standard reference	52% agreement with BM (kappa=0.085) [74]
Best Application	Definitive MRD status assessment [74]	Early relapse risk identification [74]

Experimental Protocols for Comparative MRD Assessment

Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) Workflow

The clonoSEQ NGS-based MRD assay (Adaptive Biotechnologies) represents a standardized approach for both BM and PB MRD assessment [74] [76]. The following protocol details the methodology used in recent comparative studies:

Sample Collection and Processing:

• Bone Marrow: Collect 20mL of bone marrow aspirate in EDTA tubes. Isolate mononuclear cells via density gradient centrifugation (Ficoll-Paque). Extract genomic DNA using commercial kits, with minimum input of 20μg DNA (approximately 3.4×10^6 cells) required for 10^-6 sensitivity [74].
• Peripheral Blood: Collect 20-30mL of peripheral blood in EDTA tubes. Process identical to BM samples for mononuclear cell isolation and DNA extraction. Median input of 1.9×10^6 cells achieved in recent studies, with 86% (49/57) of samples reaching 10^-6 sensitivity [74].

Library Preparation and Sequencing:

• Amplify rearranged immunoglobulin genes using multiplex PCR primers targeting V, D, and J gene segments.
• Incorporate unique molecular identifiers to correct for PCR amplification bias and sequencing errors.
• Perform high-throughput sequencing on Illumina platforms to achieve sufficient coverage for MRD detection at 10^-6 sensitivity [74] [76].

Bioinformatic Analysis:

• Align sequence reads to reference V, D, and J gene segments.
• Cluster sequences into clonal groups based on shared V-D-J rearrangements and complementary determining region 3 (CDR3) sequences.
• Quantify tumor burden by calculating the ratio of tumor-derived sequences to total evaluable sequences [76].

Interpretation Criteria:

• BM MRD negativity defined as <10^-6 (or <10^-5 if insufficient DNA for 10^-6 assessment) [74].
• PB MRD positivity defined as any quantifiable signal above background [74].

Comparative Analysis Protocol

Recent studies have established standardized protocols for directly comparing BM and PB MRD assessment:

Paired Sample Collection:

• Collect matched BM aspirate and PB samples within 24 hours during specified treatment timepoints (e.g., after 4 cycles of induction therapy) [74].
• Process samples in parallel using identical laboratory methods to minimize technical variability.

Analytical Comparison:

• Assess agreement between compartments using Cohen's kappa coefficient for categorical MRD status (positive/negative) [74].
• Calculate quantitative correlation using linear regression of log-transformed MRD values in paired samples.
• Analyze discordant results to identify biological and technical factors contributing to compartment differences.

Clinical Correlation:

• Evaluate prognostic significance of BM MRD and PB MRD status separately using Kaplan-Meier analysis for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) [74].
• Perform multivariate analysis adjusting for established risk factors (ISS stage, high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities) [74].

Clinical Validation and Prognostic Significance

Prognostic Performance in Clinical Studies

Recent prospective studies have directly compared the prognostic value of BM versus PB MRD assessment in multiple myeloma:

Table 2: Prognostic Performance of BM vs. PB MRD in Multiple Myeloma

Assessment Method	Prognostic Impact on PFS	Prognostic Impact on OS	Clinical Implications
BM MRD by NGS	HR 0.11 (95% CI 0.015-0.85); P=0.034 [74]	Log-rank P=0.033 [74]	Identifies patients with sustained remission; may inform ASCT deferral decisions [74]
PB MRD by NGS	HR 5.27 (95% CI 1.94-14.33); P=0.001 for positivity [74]	HR 7.74 (95% CI 1.49-40.14); P=0.015 for positivity [74]	Early identification of high-risk patients; potential trigger for treatment intensification [74]
Conventional IMWG Response	Not significant (P=0.24) [74]	Not significant (P=0.78) [74]	Limited prognostic value at early timepoints compared to MRD methods [74]

The complementary prognostic value of both compartments was demonstrated in a 2025 analysis of patients receiving carfilzomib-based quadruplet induction therapy [74]. This study revealed that combined assessment provided superior risk stratification, with the poorest outcomes observed in patients positive for MRD in both compartments (log-rank P=0.0012 for PFS, P<0.001 for OS) [74].

Emerging Clinical Applications

Peripheral blood MRD assessment offers particular clinical utility in several specific scenarios:

• Therapeutic Monoclonal Antibody Interference: PB MRD assessment using NGS avoids interpretive challenges associated with serum protein electrophoresis and immunofixation in patients receiving daratumumab or elotuzumab, which can interfere with conventional M-protein monitoring [74].
• Extramedullary Disease: PB sampling may detect disease compartments that are missed by BM sampling alone, particularly in patients with extramedullary involvement or patchy BM infiltration [74].
• Frequent Monitoring: The less invasive nature of phlebotomy enables more frequent serial monitoring, potentially allowing earlier detection of molecular relapse [77].
• Post-CAR T-cell Therapy: PB MRD monitoring provides a convenient approach for assessing response and early relapse detection following chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy [74].

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Comparative MRD Studies

Reagent/Resource	Specifications	Research Application
clonoSEQ Assay	NGS-based MRD detection; FDA-approved; Sensitivity 10-6 with 20μg DNA input [74] [76]	Standardized MRD quantification in both BM and PB samples; enables cross-study comparisons
B-cell Reagent Set	Targets rearranged B-cell receptor genes; In vitro diagnostic for blood and bone marrow [76]	Identification and quantification of clonal rearrangements in B-cell malignancies
DNA Extraction Kits	Minimum 20μg DNA requirement for 10-6 sensitivity [74]	High-quality DNA extraction from mononuclear cells for NGS analysis
Multiplex PCR Primers	V, D, J gene segment coverage with unique molecular identifiers [76]	Library preparation for NGS-based MRD detection
Flow Cytometry Panels	≥8 colors for sensitivity 10-4-10-6 [1]	Complementary MRD detection method; applicable to fresh samples

Bone marrow and peripheral blood sampling offer complementary value in MRD assessment for multiple myeloma. While BM remains the gold standard for definitive MRD status determination, PB sampling provides significant practical advantages and demonstrates strong prognostic performance, particularly for identifying high-risk patients [74]. The 52% agreement rate between compartments (kappa=0.085) underscores fundamental biological differences rather than methodological limitations, with each compartment capturing distinct aspects of disease biology [74].

Future research directions should focus on standardizing PB MRD assessment protocols, defining optimal clinical applications for each compartment, and exploring integrated assessment strategies that leverage the unique strengths of both sampling approaches. With recent regulatory advancements supporting MRD as a clinical trial endpoint [75] [77], dual-compartment assessment may play an increasingly important role in drug development and personalized treatment strategies for multiple myeloma.

The efficacy of antigen-targeted immunotherapies in treating leukemia is often compromised by relapse, a significant portion of which involves lineage switch (LS), an immunophenotypic transformation of acute leukemia [78]. This phenomenon presents a fundamental challenge for Measurable Residual Disease (MRD) detection: accurately distinguishing between rare, persistent malignant progenitors and regenerating normal progenitor cells during immune reconstitution. The persistence of MRD is a powerful predictor of relapse, with positive MRD tests associated with a 3.5 to 9.1 times higher likelihood of recurrence across hematological and solid cancers [79]. In the post-immunotherapy context, conventional MRD assays, which often rely on predefined immunophenotypic or molecular markers, can be confounded by the dynamic shifts in both the malignant and normal hematopoietic compartments. This whitepaper delineates the specific technical challenges, presents advanced methodologies for robust progenitor discrimination, and provides detailed experimental protocols to guide research and drug development in this critical area.

Technical Obstacles in MRD-Progenitor Differentiation

Immunophenotypic Ambiguity and Lineage Switch

Following immunotherapy, the bone marrow landscape undergoes profound changes. Regenerating normal progenitors can exhibit immunophenotypic aberrancies, such as asynchronous antigen expression, which overlap with classic leukemia-associated immunophenotypes (LAIPs) [80]. Conversely, leukemic blasts undergoing lineage switch (LS) can shed the target antigen (e.g., CD19) and acquire markers of an alternative lineage, most commonly transforming from B-cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (B-ALL) to Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) or Mixed Phenotypic Acute Leukemia (MPAL) [78]. Project EVOLVE, an international analysis of post-immunotherapy lineage switch, found that 70.7% of LS cases were B-ALL to AML transformations, which emerged rapidly at a median of 1.5 months after immunotherapy [78]. This immunophenotypic shift renders therapies targeting the original lineage ineffective and evades detection by MRD assays focused on the diagnostic immunophenotype.

Limitations of Current MRD Assays

The statistical performance of any MRD-test is defined by its sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values [64]. A perfect test does not yet exist, and reducing quantitative MRD data to a simple binary (positive/negative) outcome decreases power and obscures the clinical significance of low-level positivity [64]. Key limitations include:

• Background Interference: The background expression of LAIP antigens on normal cells reduces assay specificity, particularly at low MRD levels [80].
• Assay Sensitivity: Standard morphological assessment of bone marrow is insufficient, detecting only ≥5% blasts, while MRD can exist at levels as low as 10⁻⁶ [1]. Even advanced techniques have varying sensitivities.
• Temporal Dynamics: LAIPs can change during/after therapy, leading to false negatives if the assay does not adapt [80].

Table 1: Key Performance Metrics for MRD Tests [64] [79]

Metric	Definition	Interpretation in Post-Immunotherapy Context
Sensitivity	True positive rate; proportion of true positives found to be MRD positive.	Must be high enough to detect rare, persistent malignant clones amidst regenerating normal cells.
Specificity	True negative rate; proportion of true negatives found to be MRD negative.	Critical for avoiding false positives from immunophenotypically aberrant normal progenitors.
Positive Predictive Value (PPV)	Proportion of positive test results that are true positives.	In studies, PPV for relapse has been reported to be <60% in ALL and AML [79].
Negative Predictive Value (NPV)	Proportion of negative test results that are true negatives.	A high NPV is crucial for accurately identifying patients who can safely avoid further intensive therapy.

Advanced Methodologies for Discriminating MRD from Normal Progenitors

Primitive Marker MRD (PM-MRD) Quantification

A novel approach to overcome the limitations of conventional white blood cell MRD (WBC-MRD) is to focus on the primitive/progenitor compartment. This method posits that the relative contribution of AML progenitors within the total progenitor compartment (CD34+, CD117+, CD133+) is more informative for relapse risk than the total leukemic load expressed as a percentage of all WBCs [80]. The relationship is defined as:

WBC-MRD = PM-MRD × PM%

where:

• WBC-MRD is the classical MRD percentage of total white blood cells.
• PM-MRD is the percentage of AML cells within the total primitive/progenitor compartment.
• PM% is the total primitive/progenitor compartment as a percentage of WBCs.

Research has demonstrated that PM-MRD offers superior prognostic discrimination compared to WBC-MRD. The PM% parameter itself showed no independent prognostic impact, suggesting that the prognostic power of WBC-MRD derives primarily from the PM-MRD component it contains [80]. Critically, this method can identify a high-risk patient subgroup with PM-MRD ≥10% that would be misclassified as good prognosis (MRD-negative) by the European LeukemiaNet 0.1% WBC-MRD consensus cutoff [80].

High-Sensitivity Sequencing and Liquid Biopsy

In solid tumors and increasingly in hematologic malignancies, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis offers a minimally invasive approach to MRD monitoring. Tumor-informed next-generation sequencing (NGS) assays, such as Signatera and RaDaR, first sequence the tumor to identify patient-specific mutations, then track them in plasma with high sensitivity (limit of detection as low as 0.001% mutant allele frequency) [12]. This approach is less susceptible to the immunophenotypic shifts that confound flow cytometry. Tumor-naïve (or tumor-agnostic) ctDNA assays use predefined panels of cancer-associated mutations or methylation patterns, offering faster turnaround but potentially lower sensitivity as patient-specific mutations may be missed [12].

Table 2: Comparison of Key MRD Detection Technologies [12] [1]

Technology	Applicability	Sensitivity	Key Advantages	Key Limitations for Post-Immunotherapy Use
Multiparameter Flow Cytometry (MPFC)	Near 100%	10⁻⁴ to 10⁻⁶	Fast, widely available, can detect aberrant immunophenotypes without a prior molecular target.	Susceptible to lineage switch and immunophenotypic evolution; requires expert analysis.
Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS)	>95%	10⁻⁶ for DNA-based MRD	Highly sensitive, can track clonal evolution, comprehensive genomic profile.	May not detect cells that have undergone lineage switch if the mutation profile is stable.
ctDNA (Tumor-Informed)	Depends on tissue availability	~0.001% tumor fraction	Minimally invasive (liquid biopsy), high specificity, tracks clonal mutations.	Requires high-quality tumor tissue; may miss heterogeneity; turnaround time longer.
qPCR/Digital PCR	~40-50% (for specific fusions)	10⁻⁴ to 10⁻⁶	Highly sensitive and quantitative for known targets; standardized.	Limited to a single, predefined genetic abnormality per assay.

Standardized Biospecimen Collection

The accuracy of any MRD assay is contingent on specimen quality. For bone marrow-based tests like flow cytometry, standardized collection of a "technical first pull" after needle repositioning is critical to ensure adequate cellularity and minimize hemodilution, which quantifiably lowers assay sensitivity [81]. Achieving an analytical input of 10 million nucleated cells is necessary for a sensitivity of 10⁻⁶, a benchmark reached in 97.5% of specimens using this method in one multiple myeloma study [81]. Reporting specimen adequacy, including cellularity and degree of hemodilution, is an essential element of MRD reporting.

Experimental Protocols for Critical Analyses

Protocol 1: PM-MRD Assessment by Flow Cytometry

This protocol outlines the steps to quantify the AML progenitor burden within the total primitive compartment [80].

• Sample Preparation: Collect bone marrow aspirate in heparin or EDTA. Use a technical first pull after needle repositioning for optimal quality [81]. Isolate mononuclear cells via density gradient centrifugation (e.g., Ficoll-Paque).
• Staining: Aliquot cells and stain with antibody panels. Panels must include:
  • Primitive/Progenitor Markers: CD34, CD117, CD133.
  • Myeloid Markers: CD13, CD33, HLA-DR.
  • Lineage Markers: CD19, CD7, CD56, etc., to identify aberrant expression.
  • Viability Marker: e.g., 7-AAD, to exclude dead cells.
  • Include a tube with appropriate isotype controls.
• Data Acquisition: Acquire data on a flow cytometer (e.g., FACS Canto). Aim for a minimum of 5-10 million events to achieve high sensitivity.
• Gating and Analysis (Using Software such as Infinicyt): a. Gate on viable, singlet cells based on forward and side scatter properties. b. Identify the total primitive/progenitor compartment (PM%) by gating on CD34+, CD117+, and/or CD133+ cells. Express this as a percentage of total nucleated white blood cells (WBCs). c. Within the primitive/progenitor gate, identify the leukemic population using a LAIP or "difference from normal" approach. Key discriminators include overexpression, underexpression, or asynchronous expression of myeloid and lineage markers compared to normal progenitor patterns. d. The percentage of this LAIP+ population within the total primitive/progenitor gate is the PM-MRD. e. The classical WBC-MRD is calculated as: (PM-MRD × PM%) / 100.

Diagram: Experimental Workflow for PM-MRD Assessment

Protocol 2: Tumor-Informed ctDNA Analysis for MRD

This protocol describes the process for using bespoke NGS assays to monitor MRD via liquid biopsy [12].

• Tumor Tissue Sequencing:
  • Obtain formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumor tissue from initial diagnosis or biopsy.
  • Extract genomic DNA and perform Whole Exome Sequencing (WES) or comprehensive NGS using a large panel to identify tumor-specific somatic mutations (single nucleotide variants, indels).
• Custom Assay Design:
  • Select 16-20 clonal, patient-specific mutations for tracking.
  • Design a patient-specific multiplex PCR primer panel (e.g., for Safe-SeqS or similar amplicon-based NGS).
• Plasma Collection and Processing:
  • Collect peripheral blood in cell-stabilization tubes (e.g., Streck).
  • Centrifuge to separate plasma. Perform a second high-speed centrifugation to remove residual cells.
  • Extract cell-free DNA (cfDNA) from plasma using a commercial kit.
• Library Preparation and Sequencing:
  • Use the custom primer panel to amplify and barcode the target mutations from the patient's cfDNA. Incorporate Unique Molecular Identifiers (UMIs) to correct for PCR errors and enable absolute quantification.
  • Perform deep sequencing on an NGS platform (e.g., Illumina).
• Bioinformatic Analysis:
  • Process raw sequencing data, group reads by UMI, and call variants.
  • Quantify the tumor fraction in plasma by the variant allele frequency of the tracked mutations.
  • A result above the assay's limit of detection (e.g., >0.01% tumor fraction) is considered MRD-positive.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for MRD-Progenitor Studies

Reagent / Solution	Function	Key Considerations
Multicolor Flow Cytometry Antibody Panels	To immunophenotype cells and distinguish malignant from normal progenitors based on LAIPs.	Panels must include primitive (CD34, CD117, CD133), myeloid, and lineage markers. Validation against normal bone marrow controls is essential.
Cell Stabilization Blood Collection Tubes (e.g., Streck)	Preserves blood sample integrity by preventing cell lysis and genomic DNA release, crucial for accurate ctDNA analysis.	Ensures that cfDNA levels reflect in vivo reality and are not artifactually elevated by in vitro cell death.
cfDNA Extraction Kits	Isolate high-quality, low-biomass cfDNA from plasma for downstream NGS library preparation.	Kits optimized for low starting volumes and high recovery are critical for detecting low ctDNA fractions.
Unique Molecular Identifiers (UMIs)	Short DNA barcodes ligated to individual DNA molecules before PCR amplification in NGS library prep.	Allows bioinformatic correction of PCR amplification errors and duplicates, enabling accurate quantification of original mutant molecules.
NGS Panels for Clonal Rearrangement	Detect and quantify rearrangements in immunoglobulin (Ig) or T-cell receptor (TCR) genes for MRD tracking in ALL.	Covers a broad range of potential clonal markers but requires a diagnostic sample for target identification.

Differentiating MRD from normal progenitors in the post-immunotherapy landscape is a complex but surmountable challenge. Relying solely on conventional WBC-MRD assessment risks both false negatives due to lineage switch and false positives due to regenerative changes. The integration of advanced methodologies—specifically, PM-MRD quantification to refine flow cytometric analysis and tumor-informed ctDNA sequencing for independent molecular tracking—provides a more robust framework for residual disease detection. Future research must focus on standardizing these assays, prospectively validating their lead time and predictive power in clinical trials, and exploring integrated multi-omic approaches that combine immunophenotypic, genomic, and transcriptional data to unequivocally identify the residual cells responsible for relapse.

Benchmarking MRD Assays: Clinical Validation, Concordance, and Utility

The detection of minimal residual disease (MRD) has become a cornerstone in the management of various cancers, particularly hematological malignancies, providing critical prognostic information that guides therapeutic decisions. This technical review offers a comprehensive comparison of the three principal methodologies employed in MRD detection: multiparameter flow cytometry (MFC), polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and next-generation sequencing (NGS). By examining the analytical sensitivities, specificities, advantages, limitations, and specific clinical applications of each technique, this review aims to equip researchers and clinicians with the necessary knowledge to select appropriate MRD detection strategies for both clinical practice and research settings, ultimately contributing to more personalized and effective cancer management.

Minimal residual disease (MRD) refers to the presence of a small number of cancer cells that persist in a patient during or after treatment, typically below the detection threshold of conventional morphological microscopy [12]. The concept of MRD was first described in hematological malignancies over 40 years ago, but technological advancements have expanded its applicability to a wide range of solid tumors, including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [12]. Detecting persistent MRD allows for the identification of patients with an increased risk of relapse and death, making it a powerful prognostic biomarker [82]. In multiple myeloma, for example, patients with undetectable MRD at 3 months post-transplantation demonstrated significantly longer 3-year progression-free survival (88.7% vs. 56.6%) and overall survival (96.2% vs. 77.3%) compared to MRD-positive patients [82]. The International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) has established criteria for defining MRD-negative responses, requiring a sensitivity of at least 10⁻⁵ (one malignant cell per hundred thousand normal cells) [82]. This review examines the technical performance and clinical applicability of the three primary methods used to achieve this sensitivity: MFC, PCR, and NGS.

Core Methodologies and Technical Principles

Multiparameter Flow Cytometry (MFC)

MFC allows for the identification and quantification of abnormal cells based on their aberrant protein-marker expression profile. The EuroFlow consortium has developed a standardized two-tube, eight-color flow assay known as next-generation flow (NGF) that can simultaneously analyze up to 10 million cells, achieving a sensitivity of 2 × 10⁻⁶ [82]. This method relies on the precise identification of a pathologic immunophenotype present at diagnosis and requires high sample quality with prompt processing to maintain cell viability [82]. A key advantage is its rapid turnaround time, providing results within hours. However, its effectiveness can be limited by immunophenotypic shifts between diagnosis and relapse, where the antigenic profile of the residual leukemic cells may differ from the original diagnostic sample [83].

Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)-Based Methods

PCR-based methods detect MRD by amplifying tumor-specific DNA sequences. These techniques have evolved significantly, with digital PCR (dPCR) now enabling absolute quantification of nucleic acid molecules by partitioning samples into droplet emulsions or physically isolated chambers, allowing for single DNA molecule detection [84]. Table 3 summarizes the evolution of PCR technologies. Real-time PCR (rt-PCR) provides a robust and sensitive platform, as demonstrated in a study detecting pathogens in cosmetic formulations where it achieved a 100% detection rate across all replicates, matching or surpassing classical plate methods [85]. The method's sensitivity is highly dependent on optimized DNA extraction and enrichment strategies. For immunoglobulin gene rearrangements, quantitative PCR uses allele-specific oligonucleotides, but its applicability is limited to 40-75% of myeloma patients due to its labor-intensive nature and the need for patient-specific standard curves [82].

Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS)

NGS strategies involve high-throughput, parallel sequencing of DNA to identify clonal gene rearrangements or somatic mutations associated with malignancy. The LymphoTrack IGH panel is a commercial NGS method that uses primers targeting immunoglobulin framework regions to amplify V(D)J rearrangements, allowing for the tracking of clonotypic sequences with high sensitivity [82]. In solid tumors, NGS-based MRD detection primarily utilizes circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis, employing either tumor-informed or tumor-naïve (agnostic) approaches [12]. Tumor-informed methods, such as the Signatera assay, first sequence the tumor tissue to identify patient-specific mutations, which are then tracked in plasma using custom panels, offering high specificity and a limit of detection as low as 0.001% mutant allele frequency [12]. In acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), a highly sensitive NGS assay demonstrated the ability to identify patients at very low risk of relapse, with a 5-year cumulative incidence of relapse of 0% for those achieving NGS MRD negativity at complete remission, compared to 45% for MRD-positive patients [86].

Figure 1: Workflow comparison of MFC, PCR, and NGS methods for MRD detection.

Comparative Analysis of Method Performance

Analytical Sensitivity and Specificity

Sensitivity remains a critical differentiator among MRD detection methods. In a direct comparison in multiple myeloma, both NGS and next-generation flow (NGF) showed high correlation (R² = 0.905), with NGF demonstrating slight advantages in progression-free and overall survival in Cox regression models [82]. In acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), NGS proved substantially more sensitive than MFC; while 66% of patients achieved MRD negativity by MFC (sensitivity 1 × 10⁻⁴) after one induction cycle, only 23% were negative by NGS (sensitivity 1 × 10⁻⁶) [86]. Notably, 46% of samples that were MRD-negative by MFC were positive by the NGS assay, and the detection of low-level MRD by NGS identified patients with a significant risk of relapse (5-year CIR of 39%) [86]. In acute myeloid leukemia (AML), a study of 717 MFC and 247 NGS analyses found 44 instances of MFC-negative/NGS-positive results, with 64% occurring within 6 months post-treatment [83].

Table 1: Comparative Analytical Performance of MRD Detection Methods

Parameter	Multiparameter Flow Cytometry (MFC)	PCR-Based Methods	Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS)
Typical Sensitivity	10⁻⁴ to 10⁻⁶ [82]	10⁻⁴ to 10⁻⁶ [12]	10⁻⁵ to 10⁻⁶ [82] [86]
Applicability	>90% for hematologic malignancies [82]	40-75% for myeloma (Ig rearrangements) [82]	Nearly 100% with sufficient DNA [82]
Turnaround Time	Hours to 1 day [82]	1-3 days [85]	7-14 days for tumor-informed assays [12]
Key Advantage	Rapid, functional protein expression analysis	High sensitivity for known targets, standardized	Unbiased, comprehensive genomic profile
Major Limitation	Immunophenotypic shift, operator-dependent	Limited to predefined targets, primer design challenges	Cost, bioinformatics complexity, contamination risk

Clinical Correlations and Prognostic Value

All three methods demonstrate significant prognostic value across various malignancies. In multiple myeloma, both NGS and NGF effectively stratified patients into distinct prognostic groups based on MRD status at 3 months post-transplantation [82]. The 3-year progression-free survival rates were significantly longer for MRD-negative patients by both NGS (88.7% vs. 56.6%) and NGF (91.4% vs. 50%) compared to MRD-positive patients [82]. In ALL, NGS MRD negativity at complete remission was associated with a 0% 5-year cumulative incidence of relapse compared to 45% for MRD-positive patients [86]. For solid tumors like NSCLC, ctDNA-based MRD detection using NGS methods can identify recurrence months before radiographic evidence, enabling earlier therapeutic interventions [12]. The high sensitivity of NGS allows for the detection of preleukemic clonal hematopoiesis mutations, "likely pathogenic mutations," or "variants of uncertain significance" that may not be detected by other methods but could have clinical significance [83].

Practical Considerations: Applicability, Cost, and Throughput

Practical implementation factors significantly influence method selection in different clinical settings. MFC offers rapid turnaround (hours), lower cost, and immediate availability of results, but requires fresh samples and is highly operator-dependent [82]. PCR techniques provide an excellent balance of sensitivity, speed, and cost, particularly for monitoring known targets, with rt-PCR demonstrating 100% detection rates for specific pathogens in quality control settings [85]. NGS, while offering the highest sensitivity and comprehensive genomic profiling, involves longer turnaround times (7-14 days for tumor-informed assays), higher costs, and requires sophisticated bioinformatics infrastructure [12]. The integration of NGS into routine clinical practice has been facilitated by the development of targeted gene panels that focus on predefined sets of disease-associated genes, offering high analytical sensitivity through deep coverage while streamlining data interpretation [87]. For HBV detection, a European multicenter study found PCR-Nanopore methods had the lowest costs among NGS approaches, while probe-capture methods had the longest turnaround times [88].

Table 2: Clinical Utility and Practical Implementation of MRD Methods

Feature	Multiparameter Flow Cytometry (MFC)	PCR-Based Methods	Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS)
Sample Requirement	Fresh cells, high viability [82]	DNA (frozen or fixed) [85]	DNA (frozen or fixed) [82]
Therapeutic Monitoring	Yes, rapid results enable quick decisions	Yes, but may require multiple assays	Yes, comprehensive profile guides targeted therapy
Operational Complexity	Moderate (requires expertise in immunophenotyping)	Low to Moderate (standardized kits available)	High (requires bioinformatics expertise)
Infrastructure Needs	Flow cytometer, trained operators	Thermal cycler, detection system	Sequencing platform, computational resources
Best Use Case	Rapid assessment during treatment cycles	Monitoring known targets in clinical trials	Comprehensive assessment pre- and post-therapy

Advanced Applications and Integrated Approaches

Complementary Use in Clinical Practice

The combination of multiple MRD detection methods can provide a more comprehensive disease assessment than any single approach. In AML monitoring, the concurrent use of MFC and NGS offers complementary information, with NGS detecting mutations associated with clonal hematopoiesis that may not manifest as immunophenotypically aberrant populations [83]. This integrated approach is particularly valuable for distinguishing preleukemic clones from active disease, informing clinical decisions about treatment intensification or modification. In lymphoid malignancies, the superior sensitivity of NGS (10⁻⁶) compared to MFC (10⁻⁴) enables earlier detection of residual disease, identifying patients who may benefit from preemptive interventions [86]. For solid tumors, combining imaging with ctDNA-based MRD monitoring provides both anatomical and molecular perspectives on disease status, potentially enhancing the early detection of recurrence [12].

Emerging Technologies and Future Directions

Technological advancements continue to push the boundaries of MRD detection sensitivity and applicability. In PCR, methods like digital PCR and photonic PCR are achieving unprecedented sensitivity levels while reducing thermal inertia and energy consumption [84]. For NGS, third-generation sequencing technologies such as long-read sequencing are improving the detection of structural variants and epigenetic modifications that may influence disease progression [87]. The development of tumor-naïve (agnostic) NGS assays that use predefined panels of recurrent cancer-associated alterations offers faster turnaround times and lower costs, though with potentially reduced sensitivity compared to tumor-informed approaches [12]. In the context of HBV characterization, PCR-Nanopore methods demonstrated sensitivity for full genome construction at viral loads >10 IU/ml, outperforming both probe-capture and metagenomic methods [88]. The integration of machine learning algorithms with MRD data is also emerging as a powerful approach to improve the prediction of clinical outcomes and optimize treatment strategies.

Experimental Protocols and Research Reagents

Key Methodological Protocols

DNA Extraction for NGS-Based MRD Detection

For optimal NGS-based MRD detection, high-quality genomic DNA extraction is critical. The process typically involves: (1) Isolation of DNA from bone marrow aspirates using automated purification kits (e.g., Maxwell DNA Purification kit); (2) Quality assessment using NanoDrop2000 or similar spectrophotometers; (3) Precise quantification using fluorescent assays (e.g., Qubit dsDNA BR assay) [82]. For samples with insufficient DNA concentration (<100 ng/μl), ethanol precipitation is recommended: add 1/10 volume sodium acetate and twice the sample volume of 100% ethanol, incubate overnight at -20°C, centrifuge at 17,900 × g for 10 min, wash with 70% ethanol, and resuspend in water [82]. A minimum of 650 ng DNA is recommended to achieve a sensitivity of 10⁻⁵, equivalent to approximately 100,000 cells [82].

NGS Library Preparation and Sequencing

The LymphoTrack IGH panel protocol for MRD detection includes: (1) One-step PCR amplification of V(D)J rearrangements using framework region primers; (2) Purification with Agentcourt AMPure XP microbeads; (3) Quality assessment using TapeStation 4200 and quantification with KAPA library quantification kit; (4) Preparation of 12-20 pM amplicon libraries; (5) Sequencing on MiSeq platform using v3 reagent kits and 2 × 251 sequencing cycles, targeting one million reads per sample [82]. For data analysis, the LymphoTrackAnalysis software identifies residual tumor cells by tracking clonotypic IGH complementarity-determining region 3 (CDR3) sequences previously characterized at diagnosis [82]. A sample is considered positive when at least two identical clonotypic reads are detected [82].

Real-Time PCR for Pathogen Detection

A verified rt-PCR protocol for quality control includes: (1) Sample enrichment in Eugon broth at 32.5°C for 20-24 hours; (2) Automated DNA extraction using PowerSoil Pro kit on QIAcube Connect; (3) PCR plate setup with commercial kits (e.g., R-Biopharm SureFast PLUS for bacteria, Biopremier Candida albicans dtec-rt-PCR for fungi); (4) Analysis of each DNA extract in duplicate with appropriate controls (no-template control, positive control) [85]. This method has demonstrated 100% detection rates for pathogens like Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Candida albicans in complex matrices [85].

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Key Reagents and Materials for MRD Detection Methods

Reagent/Material	Function	Example Products/Assays
DNA Extraction Kits	Isolation of high-quality genomic DNA from samples	PowerSoil Pro Kit, Maxwell DNA Purification Kit [82] [85]
NGS Target Enrichment	Capture of specific genomic regions for sequencing	LymphoTrack IGH Panel, Hybridization capture probes [82] [88]
PCR Master Mixes	Optimized buffers/enzymes for amplification	R-Biopharm SureFast PLUS, Biopremier dtec-rt-PCR kits [85]
Flow Cytometry Antibodies	Detection of cell surface/intracellular markers	EuroFlow NGF antibody panels [82]
Library Preparation Kits	Preparation of sequencing libraries from DNA	Illumina DNA Prep kits, ArcherDX PCM [82] [12]
Unique Molecular Identifiers (UMIs)	Error correction and accurate quantification in NGS	Incorporated in SafeSeqS, SiMSen-Seq [12]

Figure 2: Method selection framework based on sensitivity requirements and application needs.

The comparative analysis of MFC, PCR, and NGS for MRD detection reveals a complex landscape where each method offers distinct advantages and limitations. MFC provides rapid results and functional protein expression data but may be limited by immunophenotypic shifts. PCR-based methods offer high sensitivity for known targets with relatively low complexity and cost. NGS delivers unparalleled sensitivity and comprehensive genomic profiling but requires significant infrastructure and expertise. The choice of method depends on multiple factors including required sensitivity, sample availability, turnaround time requirements, and intended clinical application. Emerging evidence supports the complementary use of these technologies, with integrated approaches providing the most comprehensive assessment of MRD status. As technological advancements continue to enhance sensitivity, standardization, and accessibility, MRD detection methods will play an increasingly critical role in personalized cancer management, ultimately improving patient outcomes through earlier intervention and more tailored treatment strategies.

Minimal Residual Disease (MRD), increasingly defined as Measurable Residual Disease, refers to the small number of cancer cells that persist in patients after treatment who have achieved clinical and hematological remission [1]. These residual cells represent a latent reservoir of disease that can lead to relapse if not properly addressed. In the context of hematological malignancies, MRD has emerged as a pivotal biomarker for clinical diagnosis, risk stratification, and treatment guidance [1]. The fundamental principle underlying clinical concordance studies is that the presence and level of MRD after therapy correlates strongly with time-to-event outcomes, including progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) [89]. This correlation forms the basis for using MRD status as a surrogate endpoint in clinical trials and as a guide for treatment decisions in clinical practice, ultimately supporting the development of personalized medicine approaches in oncology [1].

The clinical value of MRD monitoring extends beyond merely detecting residual disease. Accurate MRD assessment provides a sensitive reflection of disease burden during and after fixed-duration treatment, offering independent prognostic information that surpasses traditional response criteria [89]. For instance, in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), undetectable-MRD status at the end of treatment has demonstrated independent prognostic significance, correlating with favorable PFS and OS with chemoimmunotherapy [89]. Similarly, in acute myeloid leukemia (AML), MRD assessment is now required to define the depth of treatment response according to the "Complete Remission with/without MRD" criterion established by the European LeukemiaNet [90].

Clinical Evidence: MRD Status Correlates with Patient Outcomes

Extensive clinical research has established the prognostic significance of MRD status across various hematological malignancies. The consistent finding across studies is that patients who achieve undetectable MRD status, particularly at defined sensitivity thresholds (e.g., 10⁻⁴ or 10⁻⁵), experience significantly superior clinical outcomes compared to those with persistent measurable disease.

Table 1: Correlation Between MRD Status and Clinical Outcomes in Hematological Malignancies

Malignancy	MRD Assessment Method	Sensitivity Threshold	Clinical Outcome Correlation	Study Details
Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)	Flow Cytometry, PCR [89]	10⁻⁴ (MRD4) [89]	Undetectable MRD independently prognostic for favorable PFS and OS with chemoimmunotherapy [89]	MRD status provides independent prognostic information beyond standard response criteria [89]
Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML)	Multicolor Flow Cytometry (12-color) [91]	0.01%-0.1% (10⁻⁴-10⁻³) [91]	MRD positivity associated with higher relapse risk; MRD negativity predicts longer remission [90]	ELN recommendations include MRD as standard of care for response assessment [90]
Multiple Myeloma	Next-Generation Sequencing [1]	10⁻⁵ - 10⁻⁶ [1]	MRD negativity correlates with improved PFS and OS; FDA-approved intermediate endpoint for accelerated approval [92]	MRD serves as an early endpoint in clinical trials for drug approval [92]
Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia	Flow Cytometry, PCR [1]	10⁻⁴ - 10⁻⁶ [1]	MRD levels after induction strongly predictive of relapse risk; guides treatment intensification [1]	Continuous MRD monitoring is a key prognostic factor [1]

The recent FLAIR trial in CLL demonstrated the potent clinical utility of MRD-guided therapy. This phase 3 study showed that MRD-directed ibrutinib-venetoclax therapy significantly improved progression-free survival compared to standard chemoimmunotherapy (97.2% vs. 76.8% at 3 years) [93]. Notably, the MRD-guided approach allowed most patients (65.9% in bone marrow and 92.7% in peripheral blood) to achieve undetectable MRD and discontinue treatment early without compromising efficacy [93].

In solid tumors, emerging evidence also supports the prognostic value of MRD assessment through circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis. The Friends of Cancer Research ctMoniTR project found that decreases in ctDNA after initiation of treatment were associated with improved overall survival in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with immunotherapy or chemotherapy [92]. This suggests that ctDNA monitoring may serve as an effective intermediate endpoint for accelerated approval in solid tumors, similar to MRD in hematologic malignancies [92].

Table 2: Key Clinical Trials Demonstrating MRD-Outcome Correlations

Trial/Study	Malignancy	Intervention	Key Finding	Impact on Field
FLAIR Trial [93]	Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)	MRD-guided Ibrutinib + Venetoclax vs. FCR chemoimmunotherapy	97.2% vs. 76.8% 3-year PFS with MRD-guided therapy; 65.9% achieved undetectable MRD in bone marrow [93]	Establishes MRD-guided therapy as superior to fixed-duration chemoimmunotherapy
ctMoniTR Project [92]	Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)	Analysis of ctDNA changes after immunotherapy or chemotherapy	ctDNA reduction associated with improved OS; potential intermediate endpoint for accelerated approval [92]	Extends MRD concept to solid tumors via ctDNA analysis
ELN MRD Working Party [90]	Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML)	Standardized MFC-MRD monitoring	MRD status required to define response ("CR with/without MRD"); informs post-remission therapy [90]	Establishes MRD as standard of care in AML management

Methodological Approaches for MRD Detection

Technical Platforms and Their Characteristics

Multiple highly sensitive methods are currently employed for MRD detection in clinical research, each with distinct advantages, limitations, and appropriate applications. The choice of methodology depends on disease type, available tissue samples, required sensitivity, and necessary turnaround time.

Table 3: Comparison of Major MRD Detection Methodologies

Methodology	Sensitivity	Applicability	Key Advantages	Key Limitations
Multiparametric Flow Cytometry (MFC) [1] [90]	10⁻⁴ to 10⁻⁶ (with ≥8 colors) [1] [90]	Nearly 100% for hematologic malignancies [1]	Rapid turnaround (hours); wide applicability; relatively lower cost [1] [6]	Lack of standardization; immunophenotype shifts; requires fresh cells [1]
Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) [1] [28]	10⁻⁵ to 10⁻⁶ [1]	>95% [1]	Multiple genes analyzed simultaneously; broad applicability; detects clonal evolution [1] [6]	High cost; complex data analysis; not yet standardized [1]
Quantitative PCR (qPCR) [1] [89]	10⁻⁴ to 10⁻⁶ [1]	40-50% [1]	Highly standardized; lower cost; excellent sensitivity for specific targets [1]	Only one gene assessed per assay; requires pre-identified targets [1]
Droplet Digital PCR (ddPCR) [89]	10⁻⁵ to 10⁻⁶ [89]	Similar to qPCR	Absolute quantification without standards; high sensitivity	Limited multiplexing capability; requires specific probes
Tissue-Informed Whole Genome Sequencing [28]	0.001% (10⁻⁵) [28]	Broad for solid tumors and hematologic malignancies	Monitors hundreds to thousands of tumor-specific variants; high specificity in low tumor burden [28]	Research use only; computationally intensive

Standardized Experimental Protocols

Multiparametric Flow Cytometry for AML MRD Detection

The European LeukemiaNet MRD Working Party has established detailed recommendations for MFC-MRD detection in AML [90]. The protocol should include an essential set of surface markers: early progenitor-associated markers (CD34 and CD117), myeloid-lineage associated markers (CD11b, CD13, CD15, and CD33), and other differentiation markers (CD2, CD7, CD19, CD56, and HLA-DR) [90]. A backbone including CD34, CD117, CD13, CD15, CD33, and CD7 is always used with CD45 gating and forward scatter/sideward scatter plots [90]. When required, a "monocytic tube" should be added, containing CD4, CD11b, CD14, CD33, CD34, CD64, HLA-DR, and CD45 [90].

For analysis, two complementary approaches are recommended: (1) LAIP (Leukemia-Associated Immunophenotype) approach: Assessment of patient-specific aberrant immunophenotypes at diagnosis followed by consistent tracking throughout post-therapy follow-up; (2) Different-from-Normal (DfN) approach: Evaluation of abnormal differentiation/maturation patterns emerging during bone marrow monitoring [90]. The ELN recommends applying a combined "LAIP-based DfN approach" where specific LAIP tracking is integrated into a broad immunophenotypic profiling of BM cells [90].

For assay validation, the following performance characteristics should be established:

• Limit of Detection (LOD) and Limit of Quantification (LOQ): Validated to a level between 0.01% and 0.1%, varying based on LAIPs and event numbers [91]
• Accuracy: Assessed by testing known positive and negative samples and correlating with molecular genetic testing and follow-up bone marrow examination [91]
• Precision: Both intra-run and inter-run precision should meet acceptable criteria [91]
• Linearity: Demonstrated across the measurable range [91]
• Carry-over studies: Must meet acceptable criteria to prevent sample contamination [91]

A properly validated 12-color flow cytometry assay for AML MRD has demonstrated 93% concordance, 98% specificity, and 83% sensitivity in clinical validity testing [91].

NGS-Based MRD Detection in CLL

For NGS-based MRD detection in CLL, the EuroMRD and ERIC groups have established standardized protocols [89]. The process begins with obtaining high-quality DNA from peripheral blood or bone marrow samples. The immunoglobulin heavy-chain variable region (IGHV) genes are then amplified using consensus primers, followed by library preparation and high-throughput sequencing [89]. Bioinformatic analysis identifies clonal rearrangements present at diagnosis, which are then tracked for MRD assessment [89].

Key considerations for NGS-MRD include:

• Input DNA: Sufficient DNA (≥3-5μg) must be obtained to achieve desired sensitivity (e.g., 10⁻⁵ requires 50μg DNA) [89]
• Control markers: Germline gene controls must be included to confirm assay sensitivity [89]
• Sequencing depth: Minimum of 500,000 reads per sample is typically required for 10⁻⁵ sensitivity [89]
• Clonal tracking: Patient-specific clonal rearrangements identified at diagnosis are monitored during follow-up [89]

The European Research Initiative in CLL (ERIC) has established quality assurance programs to standardize NGS-MRD testing across laboratories [89].

Tissue-Informed Whole Genome Sequencing for Solid Tumors

Foundation Medicine's tissue-informed WGS MRD approach involves: (1) Comprehensive genomic profiling of tumor tissue using FoundationOneCDx to identify hundreds to thousands of tumor-specific variants; (2) Design of patient-specific monitoring panel targeting identified variants; (3) Serial analysis of circulating tumor DNA from plasma samples using whole genome sequencing; (4) Quantitative assessment of variant allele frequencies to determine MRD status [28]. This method has demonstrated sensitivity down to 0.001% (1 part per 100,000) in feasibility studies [28].

Visualization of MRD Assessment Workflows

Integrated MRD Monitoring Clinical Pathway

Multiparametric Flow Cytometry Analytical Process

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Key Research Reagents for MRD Detection Assays

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Research Application	Technical Considerations
Flow Cytometry Antibody Panels [91] [90]	CD45, CD34, CD117, CD13, CD33, CD19, CD5, CD7, CD56	Immunophenotypic MRD detection in AML, ALL, CLL, MM	≥8-color panels recommended; standardized fluorochrome combinations; validated clone selection [90]
PCR/NGS Primers [89]	IGHV consensus primers, patient-specific primers	Molecular MRD detection via amplification of clonal rearrangements	EuroMRD-compliant designs; quality control for sensitivity; avoidance of germline polymorphisms [89]
DNA Extraction Kits	Circulating DNA extraction kits, high-molecular-weight DNA kits	Nucleic acid isolation from BM, PB, or liquid biopsy samples	High purity requirements; minimal fragmentation; consistent yield across sample types
Library Preparation Kits	Hybridization capture kits, amplicon-based NGS kits	Target enrichment for NGS-based MRD detection	High complexity preservation; minimal bias; efficient capture
Reference Standards [91]	Cell lines with known immunophenotypes, synthetic DNA standards	Assay validation and quality control	Commutable with patient samples; well-characterized; stable long-term
Quality Control Reagents [91]	Isotype controls, compensation beads, DNA quality indicators	Monitoring assay performance and technical variability	Consistent performance; appropriate stability; relevant sensitivity ranges

Challenges and Future Directions in MRD Concordance Research

Despite significant advances, several challenges remain in correlating MRD status with patient outcomes. Discordance between different detection methods can occur, particularly when comparing flow cytometry with molecular techniques [1]. The most challenging aspects include discriminating pre-leukemic cells (persistent clonal hematopoiesis) or underlying myelodysplastic clones from AML MRD with immunophenotypic switch or subclone selection [91]. Tissue specificity of MRD results also presents interpretation challenges, as MRD levels may differ in peripheral blood compared to bone marrow [89]. In CLL, for instance, undetectable MRD rates are typically higher in peripheral blood (92.7%) than in bone marrow (65.9%) [93].

Future directions in MRD concordance research include:

• Standardization of methodologies across laboratories through quality assurance programs [89]
• Integration of artificial intelligence to improve the speed, accuracy, and standardization of MRD data analysis [6]
• Expansion into solid tumors through ctDNA monitoring, as demonstrated by the Friends of Cancer Research ctMoniTR project [92]
• Prospective validation of MRD-driven treatment interventions across multiple hematologic malignancies [93]
• Development of increasingly sensitive detection methods with thresholds reaching 10⁻⁶ and beyond [1] [28]

As MRD assessment becomes increasingly incorporated into clinical trial endpoints and treatment guidance protocols, continued harmonization of detection methods and interpretation criteria will be essential for maximizing the clinical utility of this powerful biomarker. The growing MRD testing market, projected to expand from USD 1.70 billion in 2025 to USD 4.72 billion by 2034, reflects the increasing importance of these technologies in precision oncology [6].

Minimal residual disease (MRD) refers to the small number of cancer cells that can remain in a patient's body after treatment, potentially leading to recurrence [94]. The global MRD testing market, valued at $1.70 billion in 2025, reflects the critical importance of these detection technologies in modern oncology, with projections estimating growth to $4.72 billion by 2034 [6]. The analytical validation of leading platforms—Signatera, clonoSEQ, and Guardant Reveal—ensures these tests provide clinically reliable, sensitive, and specific detection of residual disease. These platforms employ distinct technological approaches, each with unique strengths validated across different cancer types and clinical scenarios, providing researchers and clinicians with powerful tools for predicting patient outcomes, monitoring treatment response, and guiding therapeutic decisions [95] [96] [97].

Platform Methodologies and Experimental Protocols

Signatera (Natera): Tumor-Informed Whole Genome Sequencing

The Signatera assay employs a tumor-informed, patient-specific approach designed to detect circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) with exceptional sensitivity. The methodology begins with whole-genome sequencing (WGS) of a patient's tumor tissue, typically from a surgical resection or biopsy specimen, to identify up to 16 somatic single nucleotide variants (SNVs) unique to that individual's cancer [96]. A personalized multiplex PCR assay is then computationally designed to target these specific variants. This patient-customized panel is used to amplify and sequence ctDNA from plasma samples, enabling highly specific tracking of residual disease.

Recent large-scale validation studies demonstrate the protocol's robust performance. A 2025 pan-cancer study presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meeting analyzed 392 patients across five tumor types (breast cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, and colorectal cancer), encompassing over 2,600 plasma samples [96]. The assay demonstrated 94% longitudinal sensitivity and 100% specificity across these cancer types, with analytical detection sensitivity down to 1 part per million (PPM) [96]. In the surveillance setting, nearly 50% of Signatera-positive cases were detected in the "ultra-sensitive range" (≤100 parts per million) [96].

Additional validation in specific malignancies further confirms the assay's performance characteristics. In testicular cancer, the largest ctDNA study to date in this malignancy demonstrated 91.6% ctDNA-positivity rate pre-surgery for stage I disease, and 100% for both stage II and III diseases [98]. In sarcoma patients, the assay demonstrated 89% sensitivity and 100% specificity overall, with leiomyosarcoma patients showing even higher sensitivity of 93% [99].

clonoSEQ (Adaptive Biotechnologies): Immune Receptor Sequencing

The clonoSEQ assay utilizes a fundamentally different approach, targeting the rearranged immune receptor genes in B-cell and T-cell malignancies rather than somatic mutations [97] [94]. This FDA-cleared assay identifies unique DNA sequences found in the malignant clone's immunoglobulin (Ig) or T-cell receptor (TCR) genes, which result from natural V(D)J recombination processes during lymphocyte development.

The experimental protocol begins with extracting DNA from bone marrow or blood samples. For B-cell malignancies like diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), the assay targets rearranged immunoglobulin gene sequences (IgH, IgK, and IgL loci) [97]. Using multiplex PCR and next-generation sequencing, these specific rearrangements are amplified and quantified. The assay's sensitivity depends on input DNA quantity and quality, with recent enhancements significantly improving this parameter.

In March 2025, Adaptive Biotechnologies launched an upgraded version of its clonoSEQ assay for DLBCL that incorporates optimized DNA extraction methodology and maximized sample input, delivering a 7-fold increase in sensitivity while maintaining high specificity [97]. This enhanced assay was granted approval by New York State's Clinical Lab Evaluation Program (CLEP) for patients with DLBCL [97]. The proprietary approach enables highly specific detection of malignant clones while minimizing false positives that could lead to overtreatment.

Guardant Reveal (Guardant Health): Methylation-Based Tumor-Naïve Approach

Guardant Reveal employs a tumor-naïve methodology that combines ctDNA mutation analysis with epigenomic methylation profiling, eliminating the need for tumor tissue sequencing [95] [100]. This approach analyzes plasma samples directly without requiring prior knowledge of the patient's tumor genetics, streamlining the testing process and reducing turnaround time.

The experimental protocol involves collecting blood samples and extracting cell-free DNA, which is then analyzed using next-generation sequencing to detect both genomic alterations and methylation patterns associated with malignancy. The methylation profiling component is particularly valuable for detecting cancer-derived DNA fragments amidst normal circulating cell-free DNA.

Recent studies validate this approach across multiple cancer types. The LIBERATE study, published in ESMO Open in 2025, retrospectively analyzed 290 blood samples from 95 patients with early-stage ER+/HER2- or triple-negative breast cancer [100]. The assay demonstrated 100% sensitivity for distant recurrence in patients with ER+/HER2- breast cancer (representing approximately 70% of all breast cancers), and 71% overall sensitivity, with 100% specificity and 100% positive predictive value for relapse [100]. The median lead time for detection was 152 days (range: 15-748 days) ahead of clinical recurrence [100].

Comparative Analytical Performance Data

Table 1: Comparative Analytical Performance of Leading MRD Platforms

Performance Metric	Signatera	clonoSEQ	Guardant Reveal
Overall Sensitivity	94% (pan-cancer) [96]	7-fold increase in sensitivity (enhanced DLBCL assay) [97]	71% (overall in breast cancer), 100% (ER+/HER2- breast cancer) [100]
Specificity	100% (pan-cancer) [96]	High specificity maintained with enhanced assay [97]	100% (breast cancer) [100]
Detection Limit	1 PPM (parts per million) [96]	Not specified in results	Not specified in results
Key Cancer Types Validated	Colorectal, breast, NSCLC, melanoma, RCC, testicular, sarcoma [96] [98] [99]	DLBCL, multiple myeloma, CLL, B-ALL [97] [94]	Breast cancer, colorectal, NSCLC, head and neck [100] [101]
Lead Time for Recurrence Detection	3 months earlier on average vs. Signatera Exome assay [96]	Not specified in results	152 days median (range: 15-748 days) in breast cancer [100]

Table 2: Methodological Comparison of MRD Testing Approaches

Methodological Aspect	Signatera	clonoSEQ	Guardant Reveal
Technology Approach	Tumor-informed WGS [96]	Immune receptor sequencing [97]	Tumor-naïve with methylation [100]
Sample Requirements	Tumor tissue + plasma [95]	Bone marrow or blood [97]	Plasma only [95]
Turnaround Time	Longer (requires custom panel design) [95]	Standardized process [97]	Faster (no tissue needed) [95]
Clinical Utility	MRD detection, recurrence monitoring, treatment guidance [96]	Disease monitoring, treatment response [97]	MRD detection, recurrence prediction [100]
Regulatory Status	LDT with Medicare coverage [96]	FDA-cleared for some indications; LDT for DLBCL [97]	LDT [100]

Workflow Visualization

MRD Platform Methodological Workflows: This diagram illustrates the distinct methodological workflows for the three major MRD testing platforms, highlighting their fundamental differences in sample processing and analysis approaches.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for MRD Assay Development and Implementation

Research Reagent / Material	Function in MRD Detection	Platform Application
Tumor Tissue Specimens	Source of tumor DNA for variant identification in tumor-informed approaches	Signatera, FoundationOne Tracker [95] [96]
Blood Collection Tubes (cfDNA)	Stabilize nucleated blood cells and cell-free DNA for plasma separation	All platforms [96] [97] [100]
DNA Extraction Kits	Isolve high-quality, high-molecular-weight DNA from bone marrow or blood samples	clonoSEQ (enhanced extraction for 7x sensitivity) [97]
Bisulfite Conversion Reagents	Convert unmethylated cytosine to uracil while preserving methylated cytosine for methylation analysis	Guardant Reveal (methylation profiling) [100]
PCR/NGS Reagents	Amplify and sequence target regions (SNVs, immune receptors, or methylation sites)	All platforms [96] [97] [100]
Bioinformatic Analysis Pipelines	Analyze sequencing data, distinguish true signals from background noise, and quantify MRD	All platforms [96] [97] [100]

Clinical Validation and Research Applications

Prognostic Value and Clinical Correlation

The clinical validation of these MRD platforms demonstrates their significant prognostic power across diverse malignancies. Signatera data from pan-cancer studies show that patients testing negative had excellent prognosis, with 100% distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) at 12 months and 99% at 24 months, while Signatera-positive patients had DRFS of just 41% at 12 months and 14% at 24 months [96]. Furthermore, the test effectively identified patients who might benefit from adjuvant therapy, with Signatera-positive patients receiving adjuvant therapy achieving 83% 12-month DRFS compared to 49% for those not receiving therapy [96].

For clonoSEQ, data presented at ASH 2024 demonstrated that MRD negativity post-cycle six was highly prognostic of progression-free survival in DLBCL patients [97]. The test's enhanced sensitivity enables more accurate risk stratification, helping clinicians differentiate likely cures from impending relapses in DLBCL, where 30-40% of patients experience relapse, mostly within the first two years [97].

Guardant Reveal similarly demonstrated significant prognostic power, with post-operative ctDNA detection significantly prognostic for event-free survival in breast cancer patients, providing a median lead time of 152 days ahead of clinical recurrence [100]. This early detection window creates opportunities for intervention before overt recurrence develops.

Research Applications in Drug Development

MRD testing platforms are increasingly incorporated into clinical trials as biomarkers for treatment response and surrogate endpoints. The enhanced clonoSEQ assay is "already being incorporated into both biopharma-sponsored and investigator-initiated prospective trials" in DLBCL [97]. Similarly, multiple studies presented at ESMO 2025 highlight Guardant Reveal's utility in therapy monitoring, including the CROWN study tracking treatment response in ALK+ lung cancer [101].

The growing body of evidence supports MRD status as a reliable indicator of clinical outcomes and response to therapy across platforms. As the field advances, direct comparison trials are emerging, such as City of Hope's trial (NCT07125729) comparing Haystack MRD with Signatera in colorectal cancer [95], which will provide valuable head-to-head performance data to guide research applications.

Clinical Implications of MRD Test Results: This diagram illustrates the significant clinical correlations and prognostic implications of MRD testing results, demonstrating how findings guide therapeutic decisions and predict patient outcomes.

The analytical validation of leading MRD testing platforms reveals distinct technological approaches with complementary strengths. Signatera's tumor-informed method provides high sensitivity and specificity across solid tumors, with recent pan-cancer data confirming 94% sensitivity and 100% specificity [96]. clonoSEQ's immune receptor sequencing approach offers standardized, highly sensitive detection for hematologic malignancies, with recent enhancements delivering 7-fold sensitivity improvements [97]. Guardant Reveal's tumor-naïve, methylation-based methodology enables rapid, tissue-free MRD assessment with 100% sensitivity in key breast cancer subtypes [100].

For researchers and drug development professionals, platform selection depends on cancer type, tissue availability, required sensitivity, and specific research applications. Tumor-informed assays generally offer higher sensitivity, particularly in early-stage disease, while tumor-naïve approaches provide greater accessibility and faster turnaround times [95]. As MRD testing continues evolving with advancements in sequencing technologies, extraction methodologies, and data analysis algorithms, these platforms will play increasingly critical roles in cancer research, drug development, and ultimately, personalized patient care.

MRD as a Surrogate Endpoint in Clinical Trials and Drug Development

Measurable Residual Disease (MRD) refers to the small number of cancer cells that persist in patients after treatment who have achieved clinical and hematological remission. These residual cells are undetectable by conventional morphological methods but can be identified using highly sensitive technologies. In the context of acute myeloid leukemia (AML), MRD provides a sensitive and quantitative assessment of disease burden that has emerged as one of the strongest prognostic indicators of adverse outcomes across different treatment settings and disease stages, independent of baseline genetic risk classification [21] [66]. The concept of MRD has evolved from merely a prognostic tool to a potential surrogate endpoint in clinical trials—a biomarker that can be measured before the true clinical endpoint and is in the causal pathway of the disease process, where interventions are expected to affect both the surrogate endpoint and the true clinical outcome [21].

The fundamental value of MRD detection lies in its ability to identify subclinical disease levels that conventional methods miss. Traditional morphological assessment of complete remission (CR) in leukemia treatment is defined as having ≤5% leukemic blasts in bone marrow, but this approach has notable limitations due to its relatively low sensitivity. The actual burden of leukemia cells in the body can vary widely, ranging from negligible levels to as high as 10⁹ cells, depending on individual treatment responses and disease progression [1]. MRD testing bridges this diagnostic gap by using highly sensitive techniques that can detect residual disease at levels several orders of magnitude lower than conventional morphology.

For drug development, MRD represents a promising surrogate endpoint candidate that could accelerate the approval of novel therapies. The MRD Partnership and Alliance in AML Clinical Treatment (MPAACT), a research consortium founded among industry and academic leaders, actively engages with regulatory agencies to establish a pathway for validating MRD as a surrogate endpoint in AML clinical trials [21]. This initiative reflects the growing recognition that MRD status provides a more sensitive measure of treatment efficacy and disease control among patients achieving morphologic CR, potentially enabling earlier readouts of drug activity than traditional endpoints like overall survival (OS).

Technical Methods for MRD Detection

Established Detection Technologies

Multiple technologies have been developed and clinically validated for MRD assessment, each with distinct advantages, limitations, and clinical applications. The choice of methodology depends on disease type, available biomarkers, required sensitivity, and clinical context.

Table 1: Comparison of Major MRD Detection Technologies

Method	Applicability	Sensitivity	Key Advantages	Major Limitations
Multiparameter Flow Cytometry (MFC)	~90% in AML; almost 100% in ALL [21] [1]	0.05%-0.1% (10⁻³ to 10⁻⁴) [21]	Wide applicability, rapid results (same day), ubiquitous access in clinical labs [21] [1]	Requires fresh samples, lack of standardization across institutions, immunophenotypic shifts may cause false negatives [21]
Real-time Quantitative PCR (qPCR/RT-qPCR)	40%-60% in AML (specific molecular subgroups); >95% in ALL (using IG/TR rearrangements) [21] [102]	10⁻⁴ to 10⁻⁶ [1] [102]	High sensitivity, standardized protocols, lower costs than NGS [1]	Limited to specific genetic abnormalities, inability to detect emerging clones, limited multiplexing capability [21]
Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS)	>95% in ALL; high proportion in AML [21] [1]	0.1% VAF; down to 5×10⁻⁵ for targeted assays [21]	Broad applicability, detects clonal evolution, multiple genes analyzed simultaneously [21] [1]	High cost, complex data analysis, requires diagnostic sample, standardization still evolving [21] [1]
Droplet Digital PCR (ddPCR)	Similar to qPCR but with enhanced quantification [21]	10-fold more sensitive than traditional qPCR [21]	Absolute quantification, improved amplification efficiency [21]	Limited multiplexing capability, higher cost than qPCR, limited availability [21]

Methodological Principles and Protocols

Multiparameter Flow Cytometry Protocol

Flow cytometric detection of MRD relies on identifying leukemia-associated immunophenotypes (LAIPs) that distinguish malignant cells from normal physiological counterparts. The EuroFlow Consortium has developed standardized, high-throughput concepts in flow cytometric MRD detection to improve reproducibility across centers [102]. The experimental workflow involves:

Sample Preparation: Bone marrow aspirates are collected in heparin or EDTA tubes. Mononuclear cells are isolated via density gradient centrifugation (Ficoll-Hypaque) and washed twice in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) containing 1% bovine serum albumin (BSA). Cell concentration is adjusted to 10⁷ cells/mL [103].

Antibody Panel Design: The backbone of a LAIP consists of CD45, a primitive marker (CD34, CD133, or CD117), a myeloid marker (usually CD13 or CD33), and aberrant markers. The standardized antibody panel includes combinations such as:

• CD45-FITC/CD34-PE/CD123-PerCP/CD33-APC
• CD45-FITC/CD34-PE/CD11b-PerCP/CD15-APC
• CD45-FITC/CD34-PE/CD7-PerCP/CD33-APC [103]

Staining Procedure: 100μL of cell suspension (10⁶ cells) is aliquoted into tubes containing titrated antibody combinations. Samples are incubated for 15 minutes in the dark at room temperature. Erythrocytes are lysed using ammonium chloride solution, followed by two washes in PBS/BSA [103].

Data Acquisition and Analysis: Samples are acquired on a flow cytometer (e.g., FACSCalibur or FC500), collecting a minimum of 500,000 events for follow-up samples. LAIPs are identified based on aberrant antigen expression patterns: cross-lineage antigen expression, antigen overexpression, asynchronous antigen expression, or light scatter abnormalities [103]. The "different-from-normal" approach can also be employed without a diagnostic sample by identifying populations that deviate from normal maturation patterns.

Diagram 1: Multiparameter Flow Cytometry Workflow for MRD Detection

Molecular MRD Detection Using Next-Generation Sequencing

NGS-based MRD detection identifies clonal rearrangements of immunoglobulin (IG) and T-cell receptor (TR) genes or somatic mutations. The EuroClonality NGS Consortium has worked to standardize this approach, though guidelines are still evolving [102].

DNA Extraction and Quality Control: High-molecular-weight DNA is extracted from diagnostic and follow-up samples using commercial kits. DNA quality is assessed by spectrophotometry (A260/A280 ratio 1.8-2.0) and gel electrophoresis. A minimum of 1μg DNA is required for library preparation [102].

Library Preparation: For IG/TR-based detection, multiplex PCR assays amplify rearranged V-J gene segments using consensus primers. Commercial kits like the LymphoTrack assays (Invivoscribe) provide standardized primer mixes. Amplification conditions: initial denaturation at 95°C for 2min, followed by 35 cycles of 95°C for 30s, 60°C for 30s, 72°C for 45s, and final extension at 72°C for 10min [102].

Sequencing and Data Analysis: Libraries are sequenced on platforms like Illumina MiSeq with minimum 2×250bp paired-end reads. Bioinformatic analysis involves: (1) quality filtering of reads, (2) alignment to IMGT reference sequences, (3) clonotype identification in diagnostic samples, and (4) tracking of clonotype frequencies in follow-up samples. Sensitivity is determined by input DNA amount (e.g., 3μg DNA enables sensitivity of ~10⁻⁶) [102].

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for MRD Detection

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application
Flow Cytometry Antibodies	CD45, CD34, CD33, CD13, CD117, CD19, CD7, CD10	Cell surface marker identification for LAIP definition [103]
DNA Extraction Kits	QIAamp DNA Blood Mini Kit (Qiagen), PureLink Genomic DNA Mini Kit (Thermo Fisher)	High-quality DNA isolation for molecular MRD analysis [102]
NGS Library Preparation	LymphoTrack MRD kits (Invivoscribe), Archer FusionPlex	Target enrichment for IG/TR gene rearrangements or fusion transcripts [102]
qPCR/qRT-PCR Reagents	TaqMan Gene Expression Master Mix, LightCycler 480 SYBR Green I Master	Amplification and detection of fusion transcripts or mutation-specific targets [21] [1]
Digital PCR Reagents	ddPCR Supermix for Probes (Bio-Rad), QuantStudio 3D Digital PCR Master Mix	Absolute quantification of rare mutant alleles without standard curves [21]

Validation of MRD as a Surrogate Endpoint

Regulatory Framework and Current Status

The validation of MRD as a surrogate endpoint requires demonstrating that it fully captures the treatment effect on the clinical benefit endpoint, necessitating trial-level correlation across multiple clinical trials in a meta-analysis [21]. Recent regulatory developments have marked significant progress in this area:

FDA Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC): In April 2024, ODAC unanimously supported the use of MRD-negative complete remission (MRDnegCR) as an early endpoint for accelerated approvals in multiple myeloma clinical trials based on strong individual patient-level associations with overall survival, despite moderate trial-level associations [21] [104]. This decision established an important precedent for other hematologic malignancies.

European Medicines Agency (EMA): In May 2025, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) provided qualification advice on using MRDnegCR at 10⁻⁵ or higher threshold measured at 9±3 or 12±3 months as an early clinical endpoint in multiple myeloma trials to support conditional marketing authorization while progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) data mature [104].

MPAACT Consortium: This research alliance among pharmaceutical companies and academic leaders is developing a pathway to establish MRD as a surrogate endpoint in AML clinical trials, working collaboratively with regulatory agencies, health technology assessment bodies, and technology vendors [21].

The regulatory acceptance of MRD endpoints varies across hematologic malignancies, with multiple myeloma currently leading the pathway followed by acute lymphoblastic leukemia and AML.

Statistical Considerations for Surrogate Validation

The validation of MRD as a surrogate endpoint follows established statistical frameworks that evaluate both individual-level and trial-level associations:

Individual-Level Surrogacy: Demonstrates that MRD status predicts clinical outcomes like PFS or OS within the same patients. This requires showing that MRD-negative patients have significantly longer survival than MRD-positive patients. Statistical measures include hazard ratios for survival outcomes between MRD-negative and MRD-positive patients [21].

Trial-Level Surrogacy: Establishes that treatment effects on MRD (e.g., differences in MRD negativity rates between treatment arms) predict treatment effects on the clinical outcome across multiple trials. This is typically evaluated using meta-analytic approaches on data from randomized controlled trials [21].

The European Medicines Agency has emphasized that while MRD negativity has prognostic value at the patient level, surrogacy at the trial level has not been sufficiently established for all settings at the present time [104]. Methodological uncertainties in extensive data analyses have hampered interpretation, and it is not straightforward to generalize the claimed benefit of MRDnegCR to all new treatment modalities across all settings.

Diagram 2: Surrogate Endpoint Validation Framework for MRD

Technical Validation Requirements

For MRD to serve as a reliable surrogate endpoint, rigorous technical validation must ensure consistent performance across laboratories and studies:

Analytical Validation: Establishes that the MRD test accurately and reliably measures the intended analyte. This includes determining sensitivity, specificity, precision, accuracy, and reproducibility using appropriate reference materials [103].

Clinical Validation: Demonstrates that the MRD test result predicts clinically relevant endpoints. This requires prospective studies showing that MRD status consistently associates with outcomes like relapse-free survival or overall survival across different patient populations and treatment contexts [21].

Standardization: Implements uniform procedures for sample processing, testing methodologies, and result interpretation across testing sites. International consortia like EuroMRD and EuroFlow have developed quality control programs and standardized guidelines for MRD assessment in different hematologic malignancies [102].

The amount of input material is crucial for achieving claimed sensitivity levels. An MRD assessment using 100,000 cells can never reach a sensitivity of 10⁻⁶, even if the readout suggests otherwise. The EuroFlow network demonstrated a clear relation between sensitivity and the number of cells acquired for MFC-based MRD analysis [102].

Clinical Applications in Drug Development

MRD as an Endpoint in Clinical Trial Design

The incorporation of MRD as an endpoint in clinical trials is transforming drug development strategies across hematologic malignancies:

Early-Phase Trials: MRD assessment provides proof-of-concept for novel therapies by demonstrating biological activity beyond morphological remission. MRD response rates can help prioritize drug candidates for further development and inform dose selection for later-stage trials [21].

Pivotal Trials: MRD endpoints may support accelerated approval of investigational drugs, allowing earlier patient access to promising therapies while confirmatory overall survival data continue to mature. The FDA ODAC endorsement of MRDnegCR in multiple myeloma establishes a pathway for this approach [104].

Label Expansion Studies: MRD assessment can demonstrate efficacy in new patient populations or treatment settings, potentially supporting broader indications for approved therapies [21].

The European Medicines Agency has indicated that a role for MRDnegCR as an endpoint to support conditional approval can be envisaged, with the obligation to demonstrate long-term benefit remaining. This implies that trials should be adequately planned to demonstrate a benefit in PFS or OS [104].

MRD-Guided Treatment Strategies

Beyond serving as a regulatory endpoint, MRD monitoring enables sophisticated treatment individualization in clinical development:

Risk-Adapted Therapy: MRD status identifies patients at higher risk of relapse who may benefit from treatment intensification or novel therapeutic approaches. Conversely, MRD-negative patients might be candidates for treatment de-escalation to reduce toxicity [102].

Treatment Duration Decisions: MRD monitoring can guide decisions on optimal treatment duration, particularly for maintenance therapies. Sustained MRD negativity may identify patients who can safely discontinue treatment without increased relapse risk [66].

Pre-Emptive Intervention: Rising MRD levels can detect impending relapse before clinical manifestation, enabling early intervention with salvage therapies [102].

In the transplant setting, MRD status before allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation correlates with outcomes, and MRD-directed interventions before transplant may improve survival. Similarly, MRD positivity after transplantation predicts worse outcomes and may guide post-transplant strategies [102].

Current Challenges and Future Directions

Technical Standardization Needs

Despite significant advances, several technical challenges must be addressed before MRD can be widely implemented as a surrogate endpoint:

Methodology Harmonization: Different MRD detection methods (flow cytometry, PCR, NGS) may yield discordant results for the same patient at the same time point. The EuroFlow and EuroMRD consortia have made progress in standardizing procedures, but further harmonization is needed [102] [103].

Result Reporting Standards: Consistent reporting of MRD results requires specification of the detection method, sensitivity achieved, timing of assessment, and relevant thresholds for clinical significance [102].

Sample Timing and Source: The optimal timing for MRD assessment varies across diseases and treatment contexts. For B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia, MRD levels in peripheral blood are 1-3 logs lower than in bone marrow, making bone marrow the required sample source [102].

Evolving Regulatory Landscape

The regulatory pathway for MRD endpoints continues to evolve with several ongoing developments:

Context-Specific Validation: Regulatory agencies emphasize that MRD validation may be context-specific, requiring demonstration of surrogacy for particular disease settings, treatment types, and patient populations [104].

Novel Therapy Considerations: The predictive value of MRD for long-term clinical benefit with novel mechanism agents (e.g., immunotherapies, targeted therapies) requires specific validation, as response patterns may differ from conventional chemotherapy [104].

Benefit-Risk Assessment: MRD status captures antitumor activity but does not reflect treatment-related toxicity. Comprehensive benefit-risk assessment still requires evaluation of safety profiles, particularly for novel therapies [104].

Emerging Technologies and Applications

Future directions in MRD research and application include:

Liquid Biopsy Approaches: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis enables non-invasive MRD monitoring, potentially replacing bone marrow aspirations in some contexts. This approach is advancing rapidly in both hematologic malignancies and solid tumors [6].

Artificial Intelligence Integration: AI algorithms can enhance MRD detection sensitivity and specificity, particularly for complex data analysis in flow cytometry and NGS. AI can reduce manual analysis time from minutes to seconds per case while improving accuracy [6].

Solid Tumor Applications: While MRD monitoring is established in hematologic malignancies, its application in solid tumors is emerging. Technological advances in ctDNA detection are enabling MRD assessment in cancers like colon, lung, and breast cancer [1] [6].

The minimal residual disease testing market is projected to grow from USD 1.70 billion in 2025 to USD 4.72 billion by 2034, driven by rising cancer prevalence, shift toward personalized medicine, and increased use of MRD testing in clinical trials [6]. This growth underscores the expanding role of MRD assessment in both clinical practice and drug development.

MRD has evolved from a research tool to a critically important biomarker with potential as a surrogate endpoint in clinical trials. The strong prognostic significance of MRD status across multiple hematologic malignancies provides a foundation for its use in drug development programs. Technical advances in detection methods, particularly next-generation sequencing and high-sensitivity flow cytometry, have enabled reliable quantification of minimal residual disease at increasingly sensitive levels.

Ongoing initiatives by consortia like MPAACT and regulatory engagements with agencies including the FDA and EMA are establishing pathways for MRD validation as an endpoint that can support regulatory decisions. Recent milestones in multiple myeloma provide a template for other malignancies, though disease-specific and context-specific validation remains essential.

The successful implementation of MRD as a surrogate endpoint requires continued standardization of detection methods, appropriate timing of assessments, and rigorous statistical validation of both individual-level and trial-level surrogacy. As these challenges are addressed, MRD-guided drug development promises to accelerate the approval of novel therapies and advance personalized treatment approaches across a growing range of malignancies.

Measurable residual disease (MRD), also referred to as minimal residual disease, represents the subclinical population of cancer cells that persist in patients after treatment at levels undetectable by conventional morphological assessment. MRD has emerged as the most powerful independent prognostic biomarker across hematologic malignancies, providing critical insights into treatment efficacy and long-term outcomes that far surpass traditional complete remission (CR) criteria [10] [18] [105]. While morphological CR is defined as <5% blasts in the bone marrow (representing a reduction from approximately 10^12 to 10^10 leukemia cells), MRD detection methods can identify as few as 1 cancer cell in 10^4 to 10^6 normal cells, offering a dramatically more sensitive measure of disease burden [10] [105]. The prognostic power of MRD operates through two fundamental dimensions: the depth of response (achieving MRD negativity at specific sensitivity thresholds) and the kinetics of response (the timing and persistence of MRD clearance). This dual framework has transformed MRD from a purely research tool into an essential component of clinical trial design, drug development, and therapeutic decision-making [18] [106].

The evolving regulatory landscape underscores MRD's growing importance. Between 2014 and 2021, 28% of hematologic malignancy drug applications submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) included MRD data, with increasing acceptance of MRD as an endpoint for accelerated approval [16] [106]. This paradigm shift recognizes that MRD status reflects the cumulative effect of tumor biology and treatment efficacy, providing a validated surrogate for clinically meaningful endpoints like survival that traditionally required years of follow-up to assess [18] [106]. As Dr. C. Ola Landgren of Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center noted following a pivotal FDA committee decision, MRD endpoints can "cut years off of the timeline" for drug development, accelerating patient access to novel therapies [106].

Quantitative Evidence: The Prognostic Impact of MRD Across Hematologic Malignancies

Extensive clinical research has consistently demonstrated that MRD negativity associates with superior survival outcomes across multiple hematologic malignancies. The following table synthesizes key quantitative evidence from recent studies and meta-analyses:

Table 1: Prognostic Impact of MRD Negativity Across Hematologic Malignancies

Malignancy	Outcome Measure	MRD-Negative Patients	MRD-Positive Patients	Hazard Ratio (HR)	Citation
Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML)	5-year Overall Survival	68%	34%	Not reported	[18]
Pediatric ALL	Event-Free Survival	Superior	Inferior	HR 0.23 (95% BCI 0.18–0.28)	[18]
Adult ALL	Event-Free Survival	Superior	Inferior	HR 0.28 (95% BCI 0.24–0.33)	[18]
Pediatric ALL	Overall Survival	Superior	Inferior	HR 0.28 (95% BCI 0.19–0.41)	[18]
Adult ALL	Overall Survival	Superior	Inferior	HR 0.28 (95% BCI 0.20–0.39)	[18]
Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)	Progression-Free Survival	Superior	Inferior	HR 0.28 (95% CI 0.20–0.39)	[18]
Multiple Myeloma	Progression-Free Survival	Superior	Inferior	HR 0.33 (95% CI 0.29–0.37)	[18]
Multiple Myeloma	Overall Survival	Superior	Inferior	HR 0.45 (95% CI 0.39–0.51)	[18]

Beyond the binary distinction of MRD status, the kinetics of MRD clearance provides additional prognostic granularity. In B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL), patients who achieved early NGS-MRD negativity after one induction cycle demonstrated exceptional 2-year relapse-free survival (RFS) of 94% compared to 66% for those who remained MRD-positive [11]. Notably, none of the 26 patients with early NGS-MRD negativity experienced relapse, highlighting the profound protective effect of rapid, deep response [11]. Similarly, in multiple myeloma, sustained MRD negativity for >6 months was associated with significantly superior 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) compared to non-sustained responses by both next-generation flow (NGF) (100% vs. 67.6%) and NGS (90.5% vs. 72.2%) [107].

Table 2: Impact of MRD Kinetics and Persistence on Clinical Outcomes

Study Population	MRD Timing/Persistence	Outcome Measure	Result	Citation
B-ALL (N=161)	Early negativity (after 1 cycle)	2-year RFS	94% vs. 66% (MRD-positive)	[11]
B-ALL (N=161)	Early negativity in high-risk Ph-negative ALL	2-year RFS	100%	[11]
Multiple Myeloma (N=52)	Sustained negativity >6 months (NGF)	3-year PFS	100% vs. 67.6% (non-sustained)	[107]
Multiple Myeloma (N=52)	Sustained negativity >6 months (NGS)	3-year PFS	90.5% vs. 72.2% (non-sustained)	[107]

The consistency of these findings across diseases and methodologies underscores MRD's fundamental role as an integrative biomarker of disease biology and treatment sensitivity. As one review noted, MRD status has "near-universal prognostic significance across hematologic malignancies," with MRD positivity consistently signifying residual disease and worse outcomes, while MRD negativity suggests a lower disease burden and better prognosis [18].

Methodological Approaches: Technical Foundations of MRD Assessment

The accurate detection and quantification of MRD relies on sophisticated technologies capable of identifying rare malignant cells within a background of normal hematopoietic elements. The primary methodologies include multicolor flow cytometry (MFC), next-generation sequencing (NGS), and polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based approaches, each with distinct advantages, limitations, and applications.

Multicolor Flow Cytometry (MFC)

MFC detects leukemic cells based on immunophenotypic aberrancies using fluorochrome-conjugated monoclonal antibodies against surface, cytoplasmic, or nuclear antigens, combined with light scatter analysis of physical cell characteristics [10]. Two principal strategies are employed: the Leukemia-Associated ImmunoPhenotype (LAIP) approach, which identifies aberrant antigen expression patterns at diagnosis and tracks them throughout treatment; and the "Different from Normal" (DFN) approach, which detects immunophenotypic deviations from normal hematopoietic maturation patterns without requiring a diagnostic sample [10] [105]. The EuroFlow Consortium has developed standardized MFC protocols that significantly improve reproducibility across laboratories [10] [18]. Standard MFC achieves sensitivities of 10^-3 to 10^-4 (1-0.01%), while next-generation flow cytometry (NGF) can reach sensitivities of 10^-5 to 10^-6, comparable to NGS methods [10] [107]. A critical advantage of MFC is rapid turnaround, with results typically available within hours to a few days [10] [105].

Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS)

NGS-based MRD detection tracks clonal immunoglobulin (IG) or T-cell receptor (TCR) gene rearrangements unique to the malignant cell population [11] [105]. The clonoSEQ assay (Adaptive Biotechnologies) was the first FDA-approved NGS-based MRD test, authorized for use in B-ALL and multiple myeloma through the de novo premarket review pathway [108]. NGS offers exceptional sensitivity down to 10^-6 (0.0001%), requiring specialized bioinformatics for data analysis and interpretation [11] [108]. This technology is particularly valuable for detecting very low disease levels that may fall below the detection threshold of other methods, with studies demonstrating superior predictive value for relapse risk compared to MFC or PCR [11] [105]. In B-ALL, NGS-MRD assessment typically targets IGH, IGK, and IGL rearrangements, with successful tracking possible in approximately 75% of patients using IGH sequences alone [11].

Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) Methods

PCR-based approaches include quantitative PCR (qPCR) for specific fusion transcripts (e.g., BCR-ABL1 in ALL) or rearranged IG/TCR genes, and digital PCR (dPCR) offering enhanced sensitivity and absolute quantification without standard curves [10] [105]. Real-time quantitative PCR can detect a single cancerous cell among 10^4–10^5 normal cells, making it particularly valuable in malignancies with conserved molecular markers like chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) and acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) [18] [108]. In APL, PML-RARα detection by RT-PCR predicts relapse, while in CML, BCR-ABL1 monitoring guides tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy and determines eligibility for treatment-free remission [18].

Table 3: Comparison of Major MRD Detection Methodologies

Parameter	Multiparameter Flow Cytometry (MFC)	Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS)	Quantitative PCR (qPCR)
Sensitivity	10^-3 to 10^-5 (0.1% to 0.001%)	Up to 10^-6 (0.0001%)	10^-4 to 10^-6 (0.01% to 0.0001%)
Turnaround Time	Hours to few days	Several days to weeks	Several days
Key Applications	ALL, AML, Multiple Myeloma	B-ALL, Multiple Myeloma	CML, APL, ALL with specific fusion transcripts
Major Advantage	Rapid, functional protein-level analysis	High sensitivity, applicability to most patients	Gold standard for specific fusion transcripts
Major Limitation	Phenotypic shifts, expertise-dependent	Cost, complexity, specialized bioinformatics	Limited to specific genetic alterations

The following diagram illustrates the methodological workflow for MRD assessment, from sample collection through clinical application:

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Technologies for MRD Research

Cutting-edge MRD research requires a sophisticated arsenal of reagents, instruments, and analytical tools. The following table details essential components of the MRD research toolkit:

Table 4: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for MRD Investigation

Tool Category	Specific Examples	Research Application	Technical Notes
Flow Cytometry Reagents	Fluorochrome-conjugated monoclonal antibodies (CD10, CD19, CD34, CD38, CD45)	Identification of leukemia-associated immunophenotypes (LAIPs)	EuroFlow standardized panels reduce inter-laboratory variability [10] [18]
Molecular Reagents	IG/TCR gene primers, sequencing adapters, amplification reagents	NGS-based clonotype tracking	clonoSEQ assay uses multiplex PCR and NGS for IG/TR rearrangements [11] [108]
Sample Preparation	EDTA or heparin anticoagulants, erythrocyte lysis buffers, DNA extraction kits	Sample preservation and nucleic acid isolation	Bulk lysis protocols enable high-sensitivity detection [10] [105]
Reference Materials	Normal donor samples, sensitivity controls, standardized cell lines	Assay validation and quality control	Essential for establishing limit of detection [10]
Bioinformatics Tools	Clonality analysis algorithms, population separators, automated gating software	Data analysis and interpretation	Automated analysis reduces operator-dependent variability [10] [107]

Standardization of reagents and methodologies has been spearheaded by international consortia including EuroFlow, which established standardized MFC MRD protocols for ALL, CLL, and multiple myeloma, and EuroMRD, which focuses on molecular MRD assessment in ALL and lymphoma [18]. These efforts are critical for ensuring reproducibility and comparability of MRD data across clinical trials and laboratory settings.

MRD in Clinical Trial Design and Drug Development: Accelerating Therapeutic Advances

The integration of MRD endpoints into clinical trial design represents a paradigm shift in oncology drug development. Of 196 hematologic malignancy drug applications submitted to the FDA between 2014-2021, 55 (28%) included MRD data, with sponsors proposing MRD for inclusion in U.S. prescribing information in 75% of these applications [16]. This trend reflects growing recognition of MRD's utility as a surrogate endpoint that can accelerate therapeutic evaluation and regulatory approval [16] [106].

The 2024 FDA advisory committee decision supporting MRD as an endpoint for accelerated approval in multiple myeloma has catalyzed changes in clinical trial design, with companies increasingly amending protocols to include MRD as an endpoint alongside traditional progression-free survival [106]. This hybrid approach allows whichever endpoint is met first to support applications for accelerated approval, potentially cutting years off drug development timelines [106]. As Dr. Landgren noted, "I anticipate that it will lead to quicker access to new drugs for patients, and new treatment combinations" [106].

MRD's role extends beyond regulatory endpoints to enrichment strategies in clinical trial populations. By selecting patients with specific MRD profiles (e.g., MRD positivity after initial therapy), researchers can identify populations most likely to benefit from novel interventions, increasing trial efficiency and the likelihood of demonstrating clinical benefit [18] [105]. Furthermore, MRD monitoring provides critical pharmacodynamic data in early-phase trials, helping establish proof of concept for novel therapeutic mechanisms [18].

The following diagram illustrates the conceptual relationship between MRD kinetics and clinical outcomes, highlighting opportunities for therapeutic intervention:

Future Directions and Unresolved Questions in MRD Research

Despite significant advances, numerous challenges and unanswered questions remain in the MRD field. Assay standardization continues to be problematic, particularly for AML, where comparable harmonization to that achieved in lymphoid malignancies remains an unmet need [18]. Even with standardized protocols, issues of assay validation, collection method optimization, and statistical methodology require further refinement [16].

Key research priorities include determining whether MRD negativity should universally represent a treatment goal across malignancies, particularly for diseases where readily eliminating all detectable disease proves challenging [18]. Perhaps most critically, researchers must establish whether intervening based on MRD status genuinely improves survival outcomes compared to waiting for morphological or clinical relapse [18]. As noted in a recent comprehensive review, "will reacting to an MRD positive state in some diseases lead to intensified therapy and overtreatment despite a low risk of progression?" [18].

Technological innovation continues to expand MRD capabilities, with emerging approaches including blood-based liquid biopsies that may eventually reduce reliance on invasive bone marrow aspirations [106]. The FDA ruling on MRD endpoints has "ignited research on these and other new techniques to make MRD easier to measure and analyze," potentially expanding applications beyond hematologic malignancies to selected solid tumors [106] [108].

The concept of MRD itself continues to evolve, with current understanding recognizing that assays once considered indicative of "minimal" residual disease may actually reflect active disease burden requiring therapeutic intervention [18]. This refinement underscores the dynamic nature of MRD research and the ongoing need to correlate MRD findings with clinical outcomes across diverse patient populations and treatment contexts.

MRD assessment represents a transformative advancement in the management of hematologic malignancies, offering unprecedented insights into treatment response and disease biology. The prognostic power of MRD negativity and kinetics is firmly established across numerous hematologic cancers, with consistent demonstration that MRD status predicts survival outcomes with greater precision than conventional response criteria. As methodological standardization improves and technologies achieve increasingly sensitive detection thresholds, MRD is poised to expand its role in clinical trial design, regulatory decision-making, and therapeutic individualization. The ongoing refinement of MRD-based paradigms promises to accelerate drug development while optimizing treatment strategies for individual patients, ultimately improving outcomes across the spectrum of hematologic malignancies.

Conclusion

MRD detection has evolved from a research tool into a cornerstone of precision oncology, providing an unprecedented window into treatment response and relapse risk. The integration of highly sensitive technologies like NGS and ctDNA analysis is enabling earlier intervention and more personalized treatment strategies across a growing spectrum of cancers. However, the field must overcome significant challenges, including the lack of universal standardization, dynamic tumor evolution, and the need to define clinically actionable thresholds. Future progress will hinge on the widespread adoption of standardized protocols, the validation of MRD as a definitive clinical trial endpoint, and the incorporation of artificial intelligence to decipher complex disease patterns. For researchers and drug developers, advancing MRD technology represents a critical pathway to improving long-term survival and achieving the goal of curative cancer therapy.

References

• 1. Minimal Residual Disease Detection: Implications for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12079024/]
• 2. Measurable residual disease in chronic lymphocytic leukemia [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9971803/]
• 3. Detection of minimal residual disease in circulating cell ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-20589-3]
• 4. Current Status and Future Perspectives of Molecular ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40955810/]
• 5. Molecular MRD testing in patients with acute myeloid ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41409-024-02493-y]
• 6. Minimal Residual Disease (MRD) Testing Market Size to ... [https://www.precedenceresearch.com/minimal-residual-disease-testing-market]
• 7. Looking Ahead: The Future of MRD Testing and Breast ... [https://www.onclive.com/view/looking-ahead-the-future-of-mrd-testing-and-breast-cancer-management-and-insights-from-asco-2025]
• 8. 2148 MRD Study Reaches Milestone With First Patient In ... [https://www.eortc.org/blog/2025/08/04/2148-mrd-study-first-patient-in/]
• 9. Measurable residual disease in hematologic malignancies [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40666170/]
• 10. Measurable Residual Disease Testing in Acute Leukemia [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK586210/]
• 11. Prognostic impact of early NGS MRD dynamics and ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41408-025-01373-y]
• 12. A comprehensive overview of minimal residual disease in ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41698-025-00984-9]
• 13. Measurable residual disease (MRD) dynamics in multiple ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41408-024-01102-x]
• 14. A pooled analysis of 3 large multicenter trials confirms ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12371262/]
• 15. AML: MRD Testing Led to Survival Benefits in Subset of ... [https://ascopost.com/news/may-2025/aml-mrd-testing-led-to-survival-benefits-in-subset-of-patients/]
• 16. Minimal Residual Disease Data in Hematologic ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36892497/]
• 17. Minimal Residual Disease (MRD) Research | IDT [https://www.idtdna.com/pages/applications/minimal-residual-disease-research]
• 18. Measurable residual disease in hematologic malignancies [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12257026/]
• 19. MRD in solid tumors: The future of oncology sequencing [https://www.simon-kucher.com/en/insights/minimal-residual-disease-solid-tumors-next-big-thing-oncology-diagnostics]
• 20. EVIDENCE meta-analysis: evaluating minimal residual ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006497124013697]
• 21. Measurable residual disease (MRD) as a surrogate end ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12203635/]
• 22. The evolution of minimal residual disease: key insights based ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10391156/]
• 23. Foresight Diagnostics to Present Clinical Performance ... [https://foresight-dx.com/press_releases/foresight-diagnostics-to-present-clinical-performance-data-on-foresight-clarity-mrd-at-iaslc-2025-world-conference-on-lung-cancer/]
• 24. MRD Remains a Mixed Bag in Blood Cancer Care [https://www.oncologynewscentral.com/hematologic-malignancies/mrd-remains-a-mixed-bag-in-blood-cancer-care]
• 25. NeoGenomics to Present RaDaR ST Bridging Study at ... [https://ir.neogenomics.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/310/neogenomics-to-present-radar-st-bridging-study-at-islb-2025-demonstrating-reliable-mrd-detection-across-solid-tumors]
• 26. Breaking Research: MRD Positive Status Predicts ... [https://globalrph.com/2025/10/breaking-research-mrd-positive-status-predicts-leukemia-outcomes/]
• 27. Measurable residual disease (MRD) as a surrogate end ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40576165/]
• 28. Foundation Medicine Launches Molecular Residual ... [https://www.foundationmedicine.com/press-release/mrd-test-ruo]
• 29. Establishing measurable residual disease trajectories for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41408-025-01252-6]
• 30. Validation Study of Analytical Methods for Multiparameter ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12110934/]
• 31. Applications of Multiparameter Flow Cytometry in the ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9721/13/10/320]
• 32. Ten Tips for Successful Flow Cytometry [https://www.biotechniques.com/cell-and-tissue-biology/how-to-10-tips-for-successful-flow-cytometry/]
• 33. Flow MRD Monitoring Combining Laip/Dfn and CD34 ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006497124029732]
• 34. Publishing flow cytometry data - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2822558/]
• 35. Spectral Panel Design [https://fluorofinder.com/spectral-panel-design-2/]
• 36. A Guide to Spectral Flow Cytometry Fluorophore Selection [https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/life-science/cell-analysis/flow-cytometry/flow-cytometry-learning-center/flow-cytometry-resource-library/flow-cytometry-methods/spectral-flow-cytometry-fluorophore-selection.html]
• 37. Guidelines for the Presentation of Flow Cytometric Data [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091679X04750104]
• 38. Applications of machine learning for immunophenotypic ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40400510/]
• 39. Application of droplet digital PCR in minimal residual ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-57016-y]
• 40. Digital PCR: from early developments to its future application ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/lc/d5lc00055f]
• 41. Novel Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction Assay for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1525157813000950]
• 42. Digital Droplet PCR in Hematologic Malignancies [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9221914/]
• 43. A New View on Minimal Residual Disease Quantification in ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1525157822001453]
• 44. SureSeq Myeloid Fusion NGS Panel [https://www.ogt.com/us/products/product-search/sureseq-myeloid-fusion-next-generation-sequencing-ngs-panel/]
• 45. Detection of leukemia gene fusions by targeted RNA ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7388219/]
• 46. The emerging role of next-generation sequencing in ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medicine/articles/10.3389/fmed.2025.1570041/full]
• 47. Minimal residual disease (MRD) research with NGS | IDT [https://www.idtdna.com/pages/products/next-generation-sequencing/methods/minimal-residual-disease-(mrd)-research]
• 48. Next-generation sequencing in cancer diagnosis and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12009796/]
• 49. Next Generation Sequencing-based T-cell receptor gene ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1525157825002193]
• 50. Minimal Residual Testing Market [https://bisresearch.com/insights/top-companies-and-breakthroughs-in-minimal-residual-disease-mrd-testing-in-2025]
• 51. Diagnostic accuracy of next-generation sequencing (NGS) ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12094-025-04040-7]
• 52. Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Blood-based Liquid ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8941682/]
• 53. Tumor-naive versus tumor-informed approaches to MRD ... [https://haystackmrd.com/tumor-naive-versus-tumor-informed-approaches-to-mrd-testing/]
• 54. Comparison of tumor-informed and tumor-naïve ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37161793/]
• 55. Real-World Technical Hurdles of ctDNA NGS Analysis [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12564474/]
• 56. Cancer in a Drop: Liquid biopsy insights from AACR 2025 [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12223554/]
• 57. Advancements in SERS: Revolutionizing Biomedical Analysis ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12435236/]
• 58. Advancements and challenges on SERS-based ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0924224424003480]
• 59. Accuracy of minimal residual disease detection by ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10176776/]
• 60. Advancing MRD Detection in Multiple Myeloma [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12180695/]
• 61. Can MRD testing reshape adjuvant and surveillance ... [https://www.statnews.com/sponsor/2025/10/06/can-mrd-testing-reshape-adjuvant-and-surveillance-decisions-in-cancer-care/]
• 62. Foresight Diagnostics and Partners to Present New Data ... [https://foresight-dx.com/press_releases/foresight-diagnostics-and-partners-to-present-new-data-on-ultra-sensitive-minimal-residual-disease-detection-and-clinical-trial-progress-at-the-2025-american-society-of-clinical-oncology-asco-annual/]
• 63. Exact Sciences Announces Expanded Clinical Validation ... [https://www.exactsciences.com/newsroom/press-releases/exact-sciences-announces-expanded-clinical-validation-of-the-oncodetect-test]
• 64. Statistics and Measurable Residual Disease (MRD)-Testing [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7462748/]
• 65. Comparison of Minimal Residual Disease Detection by ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/6/10/91]
• 66. Measurable residual disease monitoring in acute myeloid ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0037196325000290]
• 67. Genes-first and phenotypes-first paths to treatment ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12603162/]
• 68. Biallelic antigen escape is a mechanism of resistance to ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006497125014223]
• 69. Clonal genetic evolution at relapse of favorable-risk acute ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6119134/]
• 70. Single-cell multiomics analysis reveals dynamic clonal ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-024-01999-x]
• 71. Decoding cancer dormancy: integrative genomic, phenotypic ... [https://molecular-cancer.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12943-025-02499-0]
• 72. A tour of leukemia progress in 2025, viewed through the MD ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12548704/]
• 73. January 2025 – Myeloma News from the Journals [https://www.myeloma.org/news-events/multiple-myeloma-news/january-2025-myeloma-news-journals]
• 74. Early peripheral blood and bone marrow MRD as ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12361927/]
• 75. MRD and Mass Spectrometry Testing [https://www.myeloma.org/multiple-myeloma/tests-staging/mrd-mass-spectrometry-testing]
• 76. MRD Test | Guiding decisions in multiple myeloma care [https://www.clonoseq.com/multiple-myeloma/]
• 77. Miami Myeloma MRD 2025 Meeting - MMRF [https://themmrf.org/mmrf-blogs/miami-myeloma-mrd-2025-meeting/]
• 78. Project EVOLVE: an international analysis of ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006497125008432]
• 79. testing in haematological and solid cancers | Leukemia [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41375-024-02252-4]
• 80. AML/Normal Progenitor Balance Instead of Total Tumor ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8198261/]
• 81. Standardizing Clinical Workflow for Assessing Minimal ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2152265022017165]
• 82. Comparison of next-generation sequencing (NGS) and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7603393/]
• 83. Comparison of flow cytometry and next-generation ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34585519/]
• 84. A comprehensive review of methodological and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0734975025002058]
• 85. Development of real-time PCR methods for quality control ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12058689/]
• 86. High-sensitivity next-generation sequencing MRD ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2473952922003196]
• 87. NGS Approaches in Clinical Diagnostics: From Workflow to ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/26/19/9597]
• 88. Next-Generation Sequencing Methods for Sensitive ... [https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.06.17.25329745v1.full-text]
• 89. Measurable residual disease in chronic lymphocytic leukemia: expert review and consensus recommendations | Leukemia [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41375-021-01241-1]
• 90. Multiparametric Flow Cytometry for MRD Monitoring in ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/13/18/4582]
• 91. Validation of a 12-color flow cytometry assay for acute ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37605812/]
• 92. Friends study points to ctDNA's potential to serve as an ... [https://cancerletter.com/regulatory-news/20251024_1/]
• 93. Personalized CLL Therapy With MRD Guidance Improves Survival Outcomes | AJMC [https://www.ajmc.com/view/personalized-cll-therapy-with-mrd-guidance-improves-survival-outcomes]
• 94. clonoSEQ MRD Test | Measure Blood Cancer [https://www.clonoseq.com/]
• 95. Comparing ctDNA-Based MRD Testing Platforms: ... [https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dr-rajan-guha_ctdna-mrd-liquidbiopsy-activity-7354386629806936064-8rAn]
• 96. Signatera™ Genome Clinical Performance Highlighted at ... [https://www.natera.com/company/news/signateratm-genome-clinical-performance-highlighted-at-asco-2025/]
• 97. Investor Relations | Adaptive Biotechnologies [https://investors.adaptivebiotech.com/news-releases/news-release-details/adaptive-biotechnologies-launches-assay-enhancements-increase]
• 98. Natera Announces Publication of Signatera™ Validation ... [https://www.natera.com/company/news/natera-announces-publication-of-signatera-validation-study-in-testicular-cancer/]
• 99. Signatera MRD Assay Displays High Sensitivity, Specificity ... [https://www.onclive.com/view/signatera-mrd-assay-displays-high-sensitivity-specificity-in-sarcoma]
• 100. New Study Published in ESMO Open Highlights ... [https://investors.guardanthealth.com/press-releases/press-releases/2025/New-Study-Published-in-ESMO-Open-Highlights-Guardant-Reveals-Performance-in-Detecting-Minimal-Residual-Disease-in-Patients-with-Early-Stage-Breast-Cancer/default.aspx]
• 101. October 15, 2025 [https://investors.guardanthealth.com/press-releases/press-releases/2025/Guardant-Health-and-Collaborators-to-Present-New-Data-Across-the-Cancer-Care-Continuum-at-ESMO-2025/default.aspx]
• 102. Minimal residual disease in adult ALL: technical aspects ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6142572/]
• 103. Defining consensus leukemia-associated ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/bcj201327]
• 104. IMF Announces MRDnegCR as Early Endpoint for Market ... [https://www.myeloma.org/news-events/multiple-myeloma-news/imf-proudly-announces-ema-chmp-positive-qualification-advice-i2teamm-novel-biomarker-procedure]
• 105. Measurable residual disease in acute lymphoblastic ... [https://haematologica.org/article/view/haematol.2022.280638]
• 106. Cancer Research in the Wake of a Key FDA Decision on ... [https://news.med.miami.edu/cancer-research-in-the-wake-of-a-key-fda-decision-on-minimal-residual-disease/]
• 107. Prognostic value of minimal residual disease detected by ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40241540/]
• 108. Minimal Residual Disease [https://www.southcarolinablues.com/web/public/brands/medicalpolicyhb/external-policies/minimal-residual-disease/]