Ultra-sensitive detection of clonal m-protein by mass spectrometry enhances detection of residual disease: Results from A phase 1 study of etentamig monotherapy in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma
Abstract
Abstract Background: Clonotypic peptide detection by mass spectrometry (MS) leverages monoclonal protein (M-protein) de novo sequencing and peptide quantification to enable ultra-sensitive blood-based monitoring of multiple myeloma (MM) patient M-protein kinetics. Etentamig is a 2nd generation BCMA x CD3 bispecific antibody that has shown promising efficacy and a favorable safety profile in heavily pre-treated patients with relapsed or refractory (RR) MM (Journal of Clinical Oncology, 43;16:suppl.7527). In the current study, we explored the depth and kinetics of MS M-protein response to etentamig monotherapy in serum samples from Phase 1 M22-466 (NCT03933735) study patients. The correlation between blood-based MS M-protein levels and bone marrow minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity as determined by next generation sequencing (NGS) was also evaluated. Method: Clonotypic peptide MS using M-Insight (Sebia/Corgenix) was performed on serum samples from a subset of MRD evaluable patients enrolled into the Phase 1 (NCT03933735) clinical trial of etentamig monotherapy in patients with RRMM. Bone marrow MRD negativity (<10-5 and 10-6) analysis was determined by NGS (clonoSEQ, Adaptive Biotechnologies). Patient pre-treatment (Cycle [C] 1 Day [D] 1) serum samples were digested with proteolytic enzymes to permit sequencing of the M-protein heavy and light chain. Clonotypic peptides specific to the patient's complementarity-determining regions were selected for quantification by MS. Clonotypic peptide quantification by MS was performed on available tracking peripheral blood samples at C2D1, C3D1, C4D1, and C5D1 time points post etentamig monotherapy treatment. Results: Twenty patients who were MRD evaluable and treated with 40 mg and 60 mg doses of etentamig with available serum samples collected from C1D1–C5D1 time points were selected for M-Insight evaluation. Of the 20 patients, 16 (80%) had at least one clonotypic peptide identified prior to etentamig treatment that was utilized for tracking at subsequent time points. Rapid decline in MS M-protein levels was observed in patients treated with etentamig, which strongly correlated with the patients' best International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) response. At C3D1 post etentamig treatment, patients with complete response (CR)/stringent CR (n=9) demonstrated a significant decline from MS M-protein levels (median: 1.8±0.9 g/dL at C1D1 to 0.03±0.2 g/dL at C3D1) (P<0.001). All evaluable subjects (n=16) had detectable MS M-protein at all time points (n=80). The lowest detectable M-protein level observed in the current dataset was 44 mg/dL (lower limit of quantitation of assay: 10 mg/dL). Subsequent analysis of differences in kinetics between MRD-negative (<10-5) (n=8) and MRD-positive (n=8) patients revealed a deeper reduction in M-protein levels for MRD-negative patients (median 0.02±0.2 g/dL at C3D1 compared with 0.4±0.3 g/dL at C3D1 for MRD-positive patients). Among the 8 patients who achieved MRD negativity at 10-5 threshold, 5 patients also achieved <10-6 threshold, and serum MS M-protein levels remained detectable in these patients (0.07±0.2 g/dL). Conclusions: Using MS-based clonotypic peptide detection, rapid and deep decline in serum M-protein levels was observed in RRMM patients treated with etentamig. Strong concordance was observed between MS M-protein levels and IMWG response, including in patients achieving MRD-negative CR at <10-5 and 10-6thresholds. Non-invasive and ultra-sensitive M-protein detection is feasible in MM and may serve as a key biomarker for enhancing the detection of residual disease in the future.
Article Details
Authors (19)
Aarif Ahsan
1AbbVie, Inc., North Chicago, United States
Adam Luo
1AbbVie Inc., North Chicago, United States
Cesar Rodriguez Valdes
1Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, United States
Peter Voorhees
Department of Materials Science and Engineering
Anita D'Souza
1Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, United States
Alfred Chung
6University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, United States
Sascha Tuchman
6UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, United States
Hana Safah
7Tulane Cancer Center, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, United States
John Mckay
8Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, United States
Katja Weisel
Raphael Teipel
Department of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Dresden, Technical University Dresden, Dresden, Germany
Neha Korde
1Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Myeloma Service, Department of Medicine, New York, United States
Ravi Vij
11Division of Oncology, Washington University, St Louis, MO
Shaji Kumar
Thomas Doerr
12AbbVie Inc., North Chicago, United States
Rajvineeth Kumar Pothacamury
1AbbVie Inc., North Chicago, United States
Chetasi Talati
12AbbVie Inc., North Chicago, United States
Brenda Chyla
Abbvie, North Chicago, Illinois, United States
Jeremy Ross
1AbbVie, Inc., North Chicago, United States