Qip-Mass Spectrometry in High Risk Smoldering Multiple Myeloma Patients Included in the GEM-CESAR Trial: Comparison with Conventional and Minimal Residual Disease IMWG Response Assessment
Authors: Puig Noemi , Mateos Maria-Victoria , Contreras Teresa , Paiva Bruno , Cedena María Teresa , Pérez José J , Aires Irene , Agullo Cristina , Martinez-Lopez Joaquin , Rodriguez Otero Paula , Gonzalez De La Calle Veronica , Gonzalez Marta Sonia , Oriol Albert , Gutierrez Norma C. , Rios Rafael , Rosiñol Laura , Alvarez Miguel Angel , Calasanz Maria Jose , Bargay Joan , Gonzalez Ana Pilar , Alegre Adrián , Escalante Fernando , Martínez Rafael , de la Rubia Javier , Teruel Ana Isabel , De Arriba Felipe , Palomera Luis , Hernández Miguel-Teodoro , López Javier , Martín Jesús , García Mateo Aránzazu , García-Sanz Ramón , Ocio Enrique M. , Bladé Joan , Lahuerta Juan-José , San-Miguel Jesus F. 
Published: February 2020

Introduction: The GEM-CESAR trial is a potentially curative strategy for high-risk smoldering multiple myeloma (HRsMM) patients in which the primary endpoint is the assessment of bone marrow minimal residual disease negativity by next generation flow (NGF). However, alternative methods of tumor burden evaluation in serum, like Quantitative Immunoprecipitation Mass Spectrometry (QIP-MS), a polyclonal antibody-based technology to identify intact immunoglobulins, have been also evaluated.
Patients and Methods: Ninety HRsMM patients included in the GEM-CESAR trial received six 4-weeks cycles of carfilzomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone followed by high dose melphalan and ASCT and 2 further cycles of consolidation with the same regimen. All patients received maintenance with lenalidomide up to 2 years. SPEP and IFE were performed using standard procedures and MRD was analyzed by flow cytometry following EuroFlow recommendations. QIP-MS assessment has been previously described (1) and allowed us the characterization of the isotype of each Ig trough immunoprecipitation with paramagnetic beads as well as the measurement of the molecular mass of each Ig for each specific patient, with enough precision and accuracy to establish clonality. Standard response assignment was carried out as per the IMWG guidelines.
Results: First, we confirmed the higher sensitivity of QIP-MS to identify the presence of a serum M-spike as compared to conventional protein immunofixation electrophoresis methods. Amongst patients in CR, QIP-MS identified the M-spike in 18/30 (60%) post-induction, 18/47(38%) post-ASCT and 25/58(43%) post-consolidation. Interestingly, similar results were obtained with MRD-NGF post-induction [17/30(57%)] and post-ASCT [15/47(32%)] although the positive rate post-consolidation [15/58(26%)] was higher with QIP-MS.
Then, we analyzed the overall concordance between the results obtained with QIP-MS and MRD-NGF at the three timepoints of disease evaluation, finding an overall concordance of 81% post-induction (n=76), 70% post-transplant (n=76) and 68% post-consolidation (n=77). Thus, when compared to the results of MRD-NGF, QIP-MS demonstrated sensitivities of 100%, 79% and 77% post-induction, post-ASCT and post-consolidation, and negative predictive values (NPV) of 100%, 79% and 82% at each respective time-point. (P &lt; 0,0001; P = 0,0004; P = =,0012)
Evaluation of discrepant cases showed 14 out of 22 MRD-NGF-negative patients post-induction for whom QIP-MS identified a M-spike; in some cases (i.e. IgG MM isotype) this may be related to a longer immunoglobulin half-life. There were no cases with detectable disease by NGF but QIP-MS negative. By contrast, post-ASCT, QIP-MS was negative in seven MRD-positive patients, two of whom became MRD-NGF-negative after consolidation; at last follow-up, none of them have progressed. On the other hand, sixteen patients with negative MRD-NGF after ASCT had a detectable M-spike by mass spectrometry. Of note, the M-spike became undetectable after consolidation in six out of these 16 patients. Post-consolidation, there were 7 patients in which MRD-NGF was positive but QIP-MS negative: MRD evaluation during maintenance is pending but none of them have so far progressed. By contrast, there were 18 patients with the M-spike detectable by QIP-MS but MRD-NGF negative: follow-up of these patients will address their outcome but, the only patient that has progressed so far had MRD-NGF negative post-induction, becoming positive post-transplant and consolidation, but the M-spike was detectable by QIP-MS throughout.
Conclusions: M-spike monitoring by QIP-MS shows a moderate concordance with the MRD assessment by NGF in this group of HRsMM homogeneously treated. Longer follow-up will allow us to unravel the outcome of discordant cases and to define the specificity of QIP-MS and its complementary value to NGF.
North S, Barnidge D, Brusseau S, Patel R, Haselton M, Du Chateau B, et al. QIP-MS: A specific, sensitive, accurate, and quantitative alternative to electrophoresis that can identify endogenous m-proteins and distinguish them from therapeutic monoclonal antibodies in patients being treated for multiple myeloma. Clinica Chimica Acta 2019;493:S433.

Disclosures
Puig: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; The Binding Site: Honoraria; Takeda, Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mateos:Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive: Honoraria; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmamar: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; EDO: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Paiva:Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Roche, and Sanofi; unrestricted grants from Celgene, EngMab, Sanofi, and Takeda; and consultancy for Celgene, Janssen, and Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Rodriguez Otero:Takeda: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; BMS: Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Oriol:Celgene, Amgen, Takeda, Jansse: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Rios:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Alegre:Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. de la Rubia:AbbVie: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. De Arriba:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Ocio:Mundipharma: Research Funding; Pharmamar: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Array Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria. Bladé:Janssen, Celgene, Amgen, Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Irctures: Honoraria. Lahuerta:Takeda, Amgen, Celgene and Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.