Minimal residual disease in Myeloma: Application for clinical care and new drug registration

The development of novel agents has transformed the treatment paradigm for multiple myeloma, with minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity now achievable across the entire disease spectrum. Bone marrow–based technologies to assess MRD, including approaches using next-generation flow and next-generation sequencing, have provided real-time clinical tools for the sensitive detection and monitoring of MRD in patients with multiple myeloma. Complementary liquid biopsy–based assays are now quickly progressing with some, such as mass spectrometry methods, being very close to clinical use, while others utilizing nucleic acid–based technologies are still developing and will prove important to further our understanding of the biology of MRD. On the regulatory front, multiple retrospective individual patient and clinical trial level meta-analyses have already shown and will continue to assess the potential of MRD as a surrogate for patient outcome. Given all this progress, it is not surprising that a number of clinicians are now considering using MRD to inform real-world clinical care of patients across the spectrum from smoldering myeloma to relapsed refractory multiple myeloma, with each disease setting presenting key challenges and questions that will need to be addressed through clinical trials. The pace of advances in targeted and immune therapies in multiple myeloma is unprecedented, and novel MRD-driven biomarker strategies are essential to accelerate innovative clinical trials leading to regulatory approval of novel treatments and continued improvement in patient outcomes

Will Mass Spectrometry Replace Current Techniques for Both Routine Monitoring and MRD Detection in Multiple Myeloma?

In recent years, mass spectrometry has been increasingly used for the detection of monoclonal proteins in serum. Mass spectrometry is more analytically sensitive than serum protein electrophoresis and immunofixation, can help distinguish therapeutic monoclonal antibodies from M-proteins, and can detect the presence of post-translational modifications. Mass spectrometry also shows promise as a less-invasive, peripheral-blood-based test for detecting minimal residual disease in multiple myeloma. Studies comparing the clinical utility of mass spectrometry to current blood- and bone-marrow-based techniques have been conducted. Although still primarily limited to research settings, clinical laboratories are starting to adopt this technique for patient care. This review will discuss the current status of mass spectrometry testing for multiple myeloma, the benefits and challenges of this technique, and how it may be incorporated into clinical practice in the future

Mass spectrometry methods for detecting monoclonal immunoglobulins in multiple myeloma minimal residual disease

Mass spectrometry methods that can detect low levels of monoclonal immunoglobulin in serum have recently been developed. These assays are based on the principle that each immunoglobulin has a unique amino acid sequence and therefore, has a unique mass. This mass can be used as a surrogate marker in order to monitor a patient’s disease over time and at low levels. Here, we explain these methods, discuss their advantages and disadvantages and how they may be used to monitor monoclonal immunoglobulins for minimal residual disease detection in multiple myeloma

Tracking of low disease burden in multiple myeloma: Using mass spectrometry assays in peripheral blood

Efforts over the last 5 years have demonstrated that it is technically feasible to detect low levels of monoclonal proteins in peripheral blood using mass spectrometry. These methods are based on the fact that an M-protein has a specific amino acid sequence, and therefore, a specific mass. This mass can be tracked over time and can serve as a surrogate marker of the presence of clonal plasma cells. This review describes the use of mass spectrometry to detect M-proteins in multiple myeloma to date, identifies the challenges of using this biomarker, and describes potential strategies to overcome these challenges. We discuss the work that must be done for these techniques to be incorporated into clinical practice for tracking of low disease burden in multiple myeloma

Immunotyping Provides Equivalent Results to Immunofixation in a Population with a High Prevalence of Monoclonal Gammopathies

Background: Serum immunofixation (IF) is a common laboratory test used to diagnose and monitor patients with monoclonal gammopathies. Similarly, immunotyping (IT) by capillary electrophoresis can confirm the presence of a monoclonal protein (M-protein) and determine its isotype. The goal of this study was to compare the ability of IT and IF to detect M-proteins. Methods: IT and IF results for 1000 waste clinical serum samples were obtained. All results were interpreted blindly by reviewers who were experienced in each technique. Results were compared by band. Results were also compared to patient history to determine if the original clone was present. We determined the sensitivity of IT and IF alone and in combination with additional tests. Finally, we evaluated the impact of reviewer training on the sensitivity of IT. Results: IT and IF were concordant in 721/773 (93%) samples with a history of an intact M-protein and in 143/172 (83%) samples with a history of a free light chain (FLC) M-protein. IF was significantly more sensitive than IT for the detection of FLC M-proteins (P < 0.0001). However, IF was not more sensitive than IT for detection of intact M-proteins (P = 0.1272) or when each test was combined with the FLC ratio or urine immunofixation (P = 0.2812 and P= 0.6171, respectively). Finally, after training, inexperienced reviewers improved their IT sensitivity by 19%. Conclusion: IT provides equivalent results to IF for the detection of monoclonal proteins. Training and experience are critical to the accurate interpretation of IT

Optimization and Validation of High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry Data Analysis Parameters

High-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) has gained recognition as a valuable tool for comprehensive drug screening in a variety of biological matrices. HRMS instruments collect untargeted, accurate mass data, which permit identification of known and unknown compounds in a single analytical run. One of the most challenging aspects of implementing an HRMS drug screen is establishing appropriate data analysis parameters for identifying compounds. Unlike other types of mass spectrometry data, guidelines for HRMS data analysis and acceptability criteria have not been established. Although many laboratories have published on the utility of HRMS for drug screening, few have included details on how they determined allowable errors and set positivity criteria. Previously, we developed and validated a comprehensive 169-compound drug screen on a high-resolution quadrupole time of flight mass spectrometer. Here we report the detailed procedure that we used to determine appropriate positivity criteria for our screening procedure. Our approach was empirical; we collected data and analyzed it with commonly available software. We found that a combined scoring approach using a threshold of 70, with 70% weight given to library match and 10% weight given to each of mass error, retention time error and isotope pattern difference provided optimum drug identification efficiency of 99.2%. Our results demonstrate the importance of library matching in accurately identifying compounds, and underscore the utility of robust product ion spectra that contain information on the lineage, mass and relative abundance of fragments. The method we describe is easily adaptable to include alternative parameters that may be available in software associated with a variety of HRMS platforms. With careful selection of error limits and positivity criteria, HRMS instruments are capable of producing high-quality, high-confidence results that may reduce the need for confirmatory testing

Use of a Daratumumab-Specific Immunofixation Assay to Assess Possible Immunotherapy Interference at a Major Cancer Center: Our Experience and Recommendations

Background: The incorporation of monoclonal antibodies, such as daratumumab, into multiple myeloma treatment regimens has led to the issue of false-positive interference in both serum protein electrophoresis (SPEP) and immunofixation (IF). The Hydrashift assay removes daratumumab interference from IF, allowing for correct interpretation. Here, we retrospectively examined the use of the Hydrashift assay at a large cancer center and provide guidelines on its most appropriate use. Methods: 38 patients with distinct daratumumab peaks on their SPEP were selected and were used to quantify the daratumumab peak on SPEP using the Sebia Phoresis software. A retrospective review of all Hydrashift assays ordered at our institution from July 2018 to March 2020 was performed. Data collected included patient clone type, IF migration patterns, and Hydrashift result. Serial quantification of SPEP results was performed as the corresponding IF transitioned from a true positive to a false positive. Results: Daratumumab adds a maximum magnitude of 0.20 g/dL on SPEP. Serial SPEP quantification showed IF transitioned from true positive to false positive when M-spikes ranged from 0.09 g/dL to 0.11 g/dL. Over 20 months, our laboratory performed 280 Hydrashift assays on 96 patients, 43/96 of whom had comigrating daratumumab/IgG-K IF bands. Conclusions: The Hydrashift assay is typically unnecessary in patients with large M-spikes, >0.25 g/dL, regardless of clone type. When patient history is available, we recommend the Hydrashift assay be used in patients with comigrating daratumumab/IgG-K bands with M-spikes of <0.25 g/dL

MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry distinguishes daratumumab from M-proteins

Daratumumab, a therapeutic IgG kappa monoclonal antibody, can cause a false positive interference on electrophoretic assays that are routinely used to monitor patients with monoclonal gammopathies. In this study, we evaluate the ability of matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) to distinguish daratumumab from disease-related IgG kappa monoclonal proteins (M-protein). Waste clinical samples from 31 patients who were receiving daratumumab and had a history of IgG kappa monoclonal gammopathy were collected. Immunoglobulins were purified from serum and analyzed by MALDI-TOF MS. Mass spectra were assessed for the presence of distinct monoclonal proteins. For samples in which only one monoclonal peak was identified near the expected m/z of daratumumab, the Hydrashift 2/4 Daratumumab Assay was used to confirm the presence of an M-protein. Using MALDI-TOF MS, daratumumab could be distinguished from M-proteins in 26 out of 31 samples (84%). Results from 2 samples were inconclusive since the M-protein was not detected by the Hydrashift assay and may also be undetectable by MALDI-TOF MS. Comparatively, daratumumab was distinguishable from M-proteins in 14 out of 31 samples (45%) by immunofixation. MALDI-TOF MS offers greater specificity compared to immunofixation for distinguishing daratumumab from M-proteins

Suspect Screening Using LC-QqTOF Is a Useful Tool for Detecting Drugs in Biological Samples

High-resolution mass spectrometers (HRMS), including quadrupole time of flight mass analyzers (QqTOF), are becoming more prevalent as screening tools in clinical and forensic toxicology laboratories. Among other advantages, HRMS instruments can collect untargeted, full-scan mass spectra. These datasets can be analyzed retrospectively using a combination of techniques, which can extend the drug detection capabilities. Most laboratories using HRMS in production settings perform untargeted data collection, but analyze data in a targeted manner. To perform targeted analysis, a laboratory must first analyze a reference standard to determine the expected characteristics of a given compound. In an alternate technique known as suspect screening, compounds can be tentatively identified without the use of reference standards. Instead, predicted and/or intrinsic characteristics of a compound, such as the accurate mass, isotope pattern, and product ion spectrum are used to determine its presence in a sample. The fact that reference standards are not required a priori makes this data analysis approach very attractive, especially for the ever-changing landscape of novel psychoactive substances. In this work, we compared the performance of four data analysis workflows (targeted and three suspect screens) for a panel of 170 drugs and metabolites, detected by LC-QqTOF. We found that retention time was not required for drug identification; the suspect screen using accurate mass, isotope pattern, and product ion library matching was able to identify more than 80% of the drugs that were present in human urine samples. We showed that the inclusion of product ion spectral matching produced the largest decrease in false discovery and false negative rates, as compared to suspect screening using mass alone or using just mass and isotope pattern. Our results demonstrate the promise that suspect screening holds for building large, economical drug screens, which may be a key tool to monitor the use of emerging drugs of abuse, including novel psychoactive substances

Substrate Binding Modulates the Reduction Potential of DNA Photolyase

The reduction potential of the (FADH-/FADH•) couple in DNA photolyase was measured, and the value was found to be significantly higher than the values estimated in the literature. In the absence of substrate, the enzyme has a reduction potential of 16 ± 6 mV vs NHE. In the presence of excess substrate the reduction potential increases to 81 ± 8 mV vs NHE. The increase in reduction potential has physiological relevance since it gives the catalytic state greater resistance to oxidation. This is the first measurement of a reduction potential for this class of DNA-repair enzymes and the larger family of blue-light photoreceptors