MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4417002078 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-2250

Sensitive peripheral residual disease (PRD) detection using clonotypic mass spectrometry (EasyM) in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM)

2025· article· en· W4417002078 sur OpenAlexaff
Rintu Sharma, Esther Masih‐Khan, Harjot Vohra, Sita Bhella, Christine Chen, Chloe Yang, Guido Lancman, Keith Stewart, Vishal Kukreti, Vathany Kulasingam, Abir Khaled, Zac McDonald, Liqiang Yang, Arleigh McCurdy, Suzanne Trudel

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Établissements canadiensOttawa HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMultiple myelomaMinimal residual diseaseTransplantationBone marrowFlow cytometrySurrogate endpointMonoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significanceAutologous stem-cell transplantation

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Achieving minimal residual disease (MRD) negative status has been associated with favourable outcomes confirming its utility as a reliable surrogate marker for progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The current methods include next generation sequencing (NGS) or next generation flow cytometry (NGF) but these rely on serial, invasive bone marrow (BM) assessments, which is often limited by heterogeneously patchy disease and suboptimal sampling. EasyM (Rapid Novor) is a peripheral blood based clonotypic mass spectrometry assay that employs de novo sequencing of the serum M-protein to identify a 'patient-specific peptide fingerprint’ allowing for the quantitative tracking of peripheral residual disease (PRD) (Liyasova 2021). In this study, we prospectively aimed to evaluate the clinical applicability of PRD assessments by EasyM. Methods: This is a prospective, multi-center, investigator-initiated study in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). The study enrols both transplant eligible (TE) and transplant ineligible (TI) NDMM patients within 4 months of treatment initiation; with screening M protein of >2g/L and/or involved free light chains (iFLC) of >200mg/L. Conventional myeloma tests are done monthly. EasyM is performed at screening (visit (v)1), and q3 months (v2+) for TI patients; and post-induction (v2), at day100 post-autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT; v3) and q3 monthly (v4+) thereafter for TE patients. BM MRD assessment by NGF (sensitivity 10-5) was performed once patients had negative PRD assessment by EasyM. The primary objective is to prospectively compare conventional myeloma assessments, PRD by EasyM and BM MRD by NGF to establish the role of EasyM in clinical practice. Results: As of July 25, 2025, 55 patients have been pre-screened with successful identification of unique clonotypic peptide in 54 patients- one patient was a screen failure due to iFLC levels below the detection threshold. The median age was 61 (range 33-77) years and 53% (n=29) were males. Among 48 patients with measurable intact paraprotein, the median M concentration at screening was 15.35 (range 1.1-68.1) g/L; isotypes included IgG in 74% (n=41) and IgA in 13% (n=7). In 7 patients with light chain (LC) myeloma (13%; kappa=3; lambda=4), median iFLC was 2616 (range 22.9-9381) mg/L; one LCMM was had iFLC below thresshold so excuded from the study. All 54 patients meeting eligibility criteria had successful baseline identification of clonotypic peptide, including 2 patients with M-protein < 2g/L and 6 evaluable patients with LC MM. Thirty-seven (68%) patients were TE. At the time of analysis, 23 (43%) had completed ASCT (19 single, 4 tandem) and 14 (26%) patients had started induction with the intent to proceed to ASCT. Four patients had received induction therapy followed by T cell redirecting therapy. Eight patients (9%) were TI, and 5 patients were yet to start myeloma treatment. At a median follow up of 5.6 (range 1-14) months, 30, 21 and 8 patients had completed the 2nd, 3rd and 4th visit assessments, respectively. At v2, 83% (25/30) had achieved ≥VGPR, with 11 SPEP (-), 2 SIFE (-) and no PRD (-) by EasyM. At v3, 90% (19/21) were in ≥VGPR with 9 SPEP (-), 7 SIFE (-) and 3 PRD (-) by EasyM highlighting that PRD could still detect M protein in 4 SIFE (-)patients. Amongst the patients with matched BM MRD assessments (n=9) performed within 30 days of PRD testing, six revealed concordances between BM MRD by NGF and PRD by EasyM: 4 were negative and 2 were positive by both methods. All but one of the patients demonstrating MRD (-) and PRD (-) remained SIFE (+), demonstrating an IgG kappa likely due to prior daratumumab exposure. Notably, 3 patients showed discordance between MRD and PRD assessments, with negativity by BM MRD post 4 cycles of induction yet remained SIFE (+) and PRD (+), likely reflecting delayed clearance of M-protein due to its longer half-life. All three patients had an IgG paraprotein and follow up PRD assessments are pending. To date, one TI patient has shown biochemical progression evidenced rising EasyM and iFLC levels. Conclusion: This ongoing study explores the utility of longitudinal PRD monitoring using clonotypic mass spectrometry (EasyM) which is a sensitive, non-invasive serum-based method for reliably detecting PRD and predicting BM MRD status. Updated results with longer follow up data will be presented.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,001
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,003

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,010
Tête enseignante GPT0,254
Écart entre enseignants0,244 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments→Travaux en français237 207→