Utilizing Mass Spectrometry to Detect and Isotype Monoclonal Proteins in Urine: Comparison to Electrophoretic Methods

Insights into proliferative glomerulonephritis with monoclonal immunoglobulin deposits - is it really monoclonal or not?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Proliferative glomerulonephritis with monoclonal immunoglobulin deposits (PGNMID), is a disease defined by the presence of glomerulonephritis with nonorganized mono-isotypic immunoglobulin (Ig) deposits. This review will discuss the pathogenesis of PGNMID and address novel techniques for detection of monoclonal Ig and pathologic B-cell clones and for distinguishing monoclonal from oligoclonal Ig deposits.

RECENT FINDINGS

Because of low detection rate of circulating monoclonal Ig and nephritogenic B-cell clones and emerging reports of PGNMID-IgG in children, it has been recently argued that many PGNMID-IgG3 cases may not be monoclonal lesions. A mass spectrometry-based method, serum matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time-of-flight mass spectrometry, has been shown to have superior sensitivity than immunofixation for detection of monoclonal Ig in PGNMID and other monoclonal gammopathy of renal significance (MGRS) lesions. Two novel sequencing techniques, RNA-based immunoglobulin repertoire sequencing and single-molecule real-time sequencing of monoclonal immunoglobulin, enable identification of the full-length variable sequence of monoclonal Ig, even in MGRS patients with low tumor burden and undetectable monoclonal Ig by conventional methods. Finally, staining of kidney biopsy for Ig light chain variable domain subgroups may allow for separation of true monoclonal from oligoclonal PGNMID.

SUMMARY

Novel sequencing, mass spectrometry, and immunofluorescence techniques have the potential to increase the detection rate of nephritogenic monoclonal Ig/B-cell clone and distinguish monoclonal from oligoclonal deposits in PGNMID.

Applications of Mass Spectrometry Proteomic Methods to Immunoglobulins in the Clinical Laboratory

BACKGROUND

Immunoglobulin (Ig) measurements in the clinical laboratory have been traditionally performed by nephelometry, turbidimetry, electrophoresis, and ELISA assays. Mass spectrometry (MS) measurements have the potential to provide deeper insights on the nature of these markers.

CONTENT

Different approaches-top-down, middle-down, or bottom-up-have been described for measuring specific Igs for endogenous monoclonal immunoglobulins (M-proteins) and exogenous therapeutic monoclonal antibody therapies (t-mAbs). Challenges arise in distinguishing the Ig of interest from the polyclonal Ig background. MS is emerging as a practical method to provide quantitative analysis and information about structural and clonal features that are not easily determined by current clinical laboratory methods. This review discusses clinically implemented examples, including isotyping and quantification of M-proteins and quantitation of t-mAbs within the polyclonal Ig background, as examples of how MS can enhance our detection and characterization of Igs.

SUMMARY

This review of current clinically available MS proteomic tests for Igs highlights both analytical and nonanalytical challenges for implementation. Given the new insight into Igs from these methods, it is hoped that vendors, laboratorians, healthcare providers, and payment systems can work to overcome these challenges and advance the care of patients.

Serum mass spectrometry for treatment monitoring in patients with multiple myeloma receiving ARI0002h CAR T-cells

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies have increased the patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in whom standard electrophoretic techniques fail to detect the M-protein. Quantitative immunoprecipitation mass spectrometry (QIP-MS) can accurately measure serum M-protein with high sensitivity, and identify interferences caused by therapeutic monoclonal antibodies. Here, we investigate the outcome of QIP-MS in 33 patients treated with the academic BCMA-directed CAR T-cell ARI0002h (Cesnicabtagene Autoleucel). QIP-MS offered more detailed insights than serum immunofixation (sIFE), identifying glycosylated M-proteins and minor additional peaks. Moreover, the potential interferences owing to daratumumab or tocilizumab treatments were successfully detected. When analysing different assay platforms during patient's monitoring after ARI0002h administration, we observed that QIP-MS showed a high global concordance (78.8%) with sIFE, whereas it was only moderate (55.6%) with bone marrow (BM)-based next-generation flow cytometry (NGF). Furthermore, QIP-MS consistently demonstrated the lowest negativity rate across the different timepoints (27.3% vs. 60.0% in months 1 and 12, respectively). Patients with QIP-MS(+)/BM-based NGF(-) showed a non-significant shorter median progression free survival than those with QIP-MS(-)/BM-based NGF(-). In summary, we show the first experience to our knowledge demonstrating that QIP-MS could be particularly useful as a non-invasive technique when evaluating response after CAR T-cell treatment in MM.

Performance Characteristics and Limitations of the Available Assays for the Detection and Quantitation of Monoclonal Free Light Chains and New Emerging Methodologies

Light chain measurements form an essential component of the testing strategy for the detection and monitoring of patients with suspected and/or proven plasma cell disorders. Urine-based electrophoretic assays remain at the centre of the international guidelines for response assessment but the supplementary role of serum-free light chain (FLC) assays in response assessment and the detection of disease progression due to their increased sensitivity has been increasingly recognised since their introduction in 2001. Serum FLC assays have also been shown to be prognostic across the spectrum of plasma cell disorders and are now incorporated into risk stratification scores for patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS), smouldering multiple myeloma, and light chain amyloidosis (AL amyloidosis), as well as being incorporated into the criteria for defining symptomatic multiple myeloma. There are now multiple different commercially available serum FLC assays available with differing performance characteristics, which are discussed in this review, along with the implications of these for patient monitoring. Finally, newer methodologies for the identification and characterisation of monoclonal FLC, including modifications to electrophoretic techniques, mass spectrometry-based assays and Amylite, are also described along with the relevant published data available regarding the performance of each assay.

Urine Immunofixation Electrophoresis for Diagnosis of Monoclonal Gammopathy: Evaluation of Methods for Urine Concentration

BACKGROUND

Examination of urine by immunofixation electrophoresis (UIFE) is one of the tests recommended for screening and monitoring of monoclonal gammopathies, especially multiple myeloma. Unlike the serum free light chain measurement, a positive result on urine immunofixation is diagnostic for monoclonal immunoglobulin light chains. Urine is usually concentrated, generally by membrane filtration, prior to electrophoresis.

METHODS

Alternative methods to membrane filtration for urine concentration were examined. Residual urine specimens submitted for urine protein electrophoresis were concentrated by precipitation of the proteins by ammonium sulfate salt precipitation, precipitation with ethanol and acetonitrile, and by desiccation. The concentrated specimens were subjected to immunofixation electrophoresis using antisera to free light chains (FLC). The results were compared with those from conventional immunofixation electrophoresis using specimens concentrated by membrane filtration.

RESULTS

Ammonium sulfate, ethanol, and acetonitrile precipitation results were less than satisfactory. Concentration by desiccation provided results comparable, if not better than, those by membrane filtration and conventional UIFE. The cost of desiccation is minimal compared to more than $5.00/specimen cost of concentration by membrane filtration. The differences in the results with conventional UIFE and the method described here are likely due to (a) variability in the reactivity of different antisera to free monoclonal light chains, and (b) obscuration of monoclonal free light chains by co-migration with intact immunoglobulin monoclonal proteins.

CONCLUSIONS

Concentrating urine by desiccation for immunofixation electrophoresis is technically simple, inexpensive, and provides results comparable to concentrating by membrane filtration. Using FLC provides a more sensitive assay than using conventional antisera.