Prospective urinary albumin/creatinine ratio for diagnosis, staging, and organ response assessment in renal AL amyloidosis: results from a large cohort of patients.

OBJECTIVES: Quantification of 24 h-proteinuria is the gold standard for diagnosing, staging, and monitoring of patients with renal AL amyloidosis. However, 24 h-urine collection is cumbersome and may result in preanalytical error. In this prospective study, we investigated the role of urinary albumin/creatinine ratio (UACR) (cut-off: 300 mg/g) identifying renal involvement, evaluated a UACR-based staging system (UACR cut-off: 3,600 mg/g) and assessed whether UACR response (UACR decrease >30% without worsening in eGFR >25%) predicts renal outcome in 531 patients with newly-diagnosed AL amyloidosis. METHODS: From October 2013 paired 24 h-proteinuria and UACR (on first morning void) were measured in all newly-diagnosed patients with AL amyloidosis. Correlation between 24 h-proteinuria and UACR at baseline was assessed by Pearson's r test. Impact of UACR response on renal outcome was assessed in randomly created testing (n=354) and validation (n=177) cohorts. RESULTS: A strong linear correlation was found between 24 h-proteinuria and UACR at baseline (r=0.90; p<0.001). After a median follow-up of 31 months, 57 (11%) patients required dialysis. A UACR-based renal staging system identified three stages with significantly higher dialysis rate at 36 months comparing stage I with stage II and stage II with stage III. Achieving a renal response, according to a UACR-based criterion, resulted in lower dialysis rate in both testing and validation cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: UACR is a reliable marker for diagnosis, prognosis, and organ response assessment in renal AL amyloidosis and can reliably replace 24 h-proteinuria in clinical trials and individual patients' management.

A validated composite organ and hematologic response model for early assessment of treatment outcomes in light chain amyloidosis.

Newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis patients were evaluated to develop a model for early assessment of treatment benefit at 6 months, integrating both hematologic (HR) and organ response (OR) assessment (testing cohort, Mayo: n = 473; validation cohort, Pavia: n = 575). Multiple OR were assessed as follows: All OR (AOR): response in all organs, mixed OR (MOR): response in some organs, no OR (NOR)]. AOR rates at 6 months improved with deepening HR; complete response (CR; 38%, 35%), very good partial response (VGPR; 30%, 26%), and partial response (PR; 16%, 21%), respectively. A composite HR/OR (CHOR) model was developed using incremental scoring based on hazard ratios with scores of 0-3 for HR (0-CR, 1-VGPR, 2-PR, 3-no response) and 0-2 for OR (0-AOR, 1-MOR, 2-NOR). Patients could be divided into two distinct CHOR groups (scores 0-3 and 4-5), with median OS in group 1 and group 2: Not reached vs. 34 months, p < 0.001 [Mayo] and 87 vs. 23 months, p < 0.001 [Pavia]. In conclusion, we developed a model that can assess multiple organs concurrently, and integrate both HR and OR assessments to determine early clinical benefit with treatment, which may be used as a surrogate end-point in trials and to compare outcomes with different therapies.

Patients with light-chain amyloidosis and low free light-chain burden have distinct clinical features and outcome.

The validated criteria of hematologic response in light-chain (AL) amyloidosis are based on the measurement of circulating free light chains (FLCs). Patients with a difference between involved and uninvolved FLC (dFLC) <50 mg/L cannot be assessed for response and are excluded from clinical trials. We compared the clinical characteristics and outcome of 203 newly diagnosed patients with dFLC <50 mg/L (low dFLC) with 866 patients with measurable dFLC (high dFLC) evaluated between 2004 and 2015. Heart involvement was significantly less common and less advanced in the low-dFLC group (43% vs 83% and Mayo stage III 45% vs 15%, both P < .001), whereas renal involvement was more frequent (77% vs 63%, P < .001) and more severe (renal stage III 26% vs 18%, P = .001). Overall survival (OS) was significantly better in the low-dFLC group (median 117 vs 21 months, P < .001), whereas no difference was seen in renal survival (RS). Within each Mayo stage, patients with low dFLC had a longer survival. In the low-dFLC group, complete response was associated with a significant advantage in OS (median not reached vs 117 months, P = .005) and with a better RS. A reduction in dFLC after therapy of <10 mg/L was associated with a better OS and RS in patients with at least a dFLC >20 mg/L baseline. Nineteen percent of newly diagnosed patients with AL amyloidosis have low dFLC and had a better outcome. Hematologic response assessed with adapted criteria predicts OS and RS in these patients, who can thus be assessed for response and included in clinical trials with appropriate stratification.

Circulating free light chain measurement in the diagnosis, prognostic assessment and evaluation of response of AL amyloidosis: comparison of Freelite and N latex FLC assays.

BACKGROUND: The measurement of circulating free light chain (FLC) is essential in the diagnosis, prognostic stratification and evaluation of response to therapy in light chain (AL) amyloidosis. For more than 10 years, this has been done with an immunonephelometric assay based on polyclonal antibodies (Freelite), and cutoffs for staging and response assessment have been validated with this method. Recently, a new assay based on monoclonal antibodies (N latex FLC) has been marketed in Europe. METHODS: We evaluated and compared the clinical performance of the two assays in 426 patients with newly diagnosed AL amyloidosis. RESULTS: We found suboptimal agreement between the two methods, with differences between values obtained with the Freelite and N latex FLC assays increasing with the concentration of clonal FLC. The diagnostic sensitivity of the Freelite (82%) and N latex FLC (84%) assays was similar, and both improved to 98% in combination with serum and urine immunofixation. The concentration of FLC measured with both methods had prognostic significance. Less pronounced decreases in FLC best predicted improved survival with the N latex FLC assay (33% vs. 50%), and there was poor concordance (84%) in discrimination of responders. CONCLUSIONS: The two assays have similar diagnostic and prognostic performance. However, they are not interchangeable, and follow-up should be done with either one. New response criteria are needed for the N latex FLC assay.