Use of the Serum Free Light Chain Assay in Assessment of Response to Therapy in Multiple Myeloma: Validation of Recently Proposed Response Criteria in a Prospective Clinical Trial of Lenalidomide Plus Dexamethasone for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma.
Authors: Kumar Shaji , Gertz Morie A. , Hayman Suzanne R. , Lacy Martha Q. , Dispenzieri Angela , Zeldenrust Steve R. , Lust John A. , Greipp Philip R. , Kyle Robert A. , Fonseca Rafael , Rajkumar S. Vincent 
Published: April 2020

Background: The serum free light chain (FLC) assay is increasingly used to monitor patients (pts) with oligo-secretory or non-secretory multiple myeloma (MM) and pts with primary amyloidosis lacking measurable monoclonal protein in the serum or urine. Criteria to use this assay to assess response to therapy have recently been proposed (Rajkumar SV, Kyle RA. Best Pr Clin Haematol2005;18:585–601) but have not been validated. The goal of this study was to validate the response criteria for the FLC assay in a prospective trial of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone in newly diagnosed MM.

Methods: 34 pts were enrolled in the trial; 27 pts who had serial FLC assessments were studied. FLC estimation was carried out using the serum FLC assay (FreeliteH, The Binding Site Limited, UK) performed on a Dade-Behring Nephelometer. Pts with κ /λ FLC ratio &lt;0.26 were defined as having monoclonal λ FLC and those with ratios &gt;1.65 as having a monoclonal κ FLC. The monoclonal light chain isotype was considered the “involved” FLC isotype, and the opposite light chain type as the “uninvolved” FLC type. Partial response (PR) required an abnormal baseline FLC ratio and any one of the two following criteria: 1) a 50% decrease in the level of the involved FLC plus a 50% decrease (or normalization) in the ratio of involved/uninvolved FLC or 2) 50% decrease in the difference between involved and uninvolved FLC levels. Complete response (CR) required normalization of FLC ratio and negative serum and urine immunofixation. Response at 4 months or earlier by the Bladé criteria was compared to FLC response criteria from the same evaluation.

Results: Three pts had normal FLC levels and ratio and were not included in the analysis. 23 of the remaining 24 achieved a PR or better by Bladé criteria. A 50% decrease in the level of the involved FLC plus a 50% decrease (or normalization) in the ratio of involved/uninvolved FLC correctly classified 20 of the 22 responding pts (sensitivity 91%); 2 pts could not be evaluated since baseline FLC ratio could not be calculated. On the other hand, a 50% decrease in the mathematical difference between involved and uninvolved FLC levels correctly classified all 24 responding pts (sensitivity 100%). The one non-responding pt by Blade criteria was correctly classified by both FLC criteria. All pts were correctly classified by both criteria when only those with a baseline “involved” FLC level of at least ≥10mg/dL (≥100mg/L) were considered (15 pts).

Conclusions: This study demonstrates that the serum FLC assay can be used to assess response to therapy. A 50% decrease in the difference between “involved” and “uninvolved” FLC levels will suffice as FLC criteria for PR, eliminating the need for the alternative criteria based on the involved FLC level and the ratio. We recommend that this FLC response criteria be used only in pts not having measurable levels of serum and /or urine M protein.The FLC response criteria will now enable most patients with oligo-secretory and non-secretory MM to enter trials for which they are currently ineligible due to “lack of measurable serum or urine M protein.” This study is limited by the lack of adequate non-responders to calculate specificity and lack pts who progressed to validate progression criteria and needs further validation.