• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Isoelectric focusing followed by affinity immunoblotting to detect monoclonal free light chains in monoclonal gammopathies: Comparison with immunofixation electrophoresis and free light chain ratio

D. Zeman, M. Štork, L. Švancarová, M. Borský, M. Pospíšilová, Z. Adam, M. Beňovská, L. Pour

. 2024 ; 61 (4) : 291-302. [pub] 20240207

Jazyk angličtina Země Anglie, Velká Británie

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, srovnávací studie

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc24019954

BACKGROUND: Isoelectric focusing (IEF) is a method with an exquisite resolution, and coupled with affinity immunoblotting (AIB), it can provide superior sensitivity to detect monoclonal free light chains (FLC). METHODS: We tested the hypothesis that IEF/AIB is more sensitive and specific for monoclonal FLC detection in serum and urine samples than conventional methods, that is, electrophoresis (ELP), immunofixation (IF) and serum FLC ratio assessment. Investigation included 107 samples of 68 patients, among which 21 multiple myeloma patients were recently tested for minimal residual disease and 18 patients with AL amyloidosis. RESULTS: Monoclonal FLC were detected by IEF/AIB in 37% of serum samples negative for monoclonal FLC on ELP/IF. As for urine samples, significant advantage of the IEF/AIB over ELP/IF was not demonstrated. Considering both serum and urine results, IEF/AIB definitely revealed monoclonal FLC in 20/83 (24%) of ELP/IF-negative samples. FLC ratio was abnormally high (>1.65) in all 11 patients definitely positive for monoclonal FLC kappa by IEF/AIB but also in 16/47 (34%) IEF/AIB-negative samples. Abnormally low values (<0.26) were found only in 10/28 samples (36%) positive for monoclonal FLC lambda. Appropriate use of renal FLC ratio reference range reduced the number of presumably false positives (6/47, i.e. 13%) but not false negatives (17/28, i.e. 61%). CONCLUSIONS: The IEF/AIB method is more sensitive than IF and might be used in patients with negative IF results before deciding whether to proceed to minimal residual disease testing.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc24019954
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20241024110824.0
007      
ta
008      
241015s2024 enk f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1177/00045632231221439 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)38073192
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a enk
100    1_
$a Zeman, David $u Department of Laboratory Medicine, Division of Clinical Biochemistry, University Hospital Brno, Brno, Czech Republic $u Department of Laboratory Methods, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic $1 https://orcid.org/0000000168222572 $7 mzk2018988719
245    10
$a Isoelectric focusing followed by affinity immunoblotting to detect monoclonal free light chains in monoclonal gammopathies: Comparison with immunofixation electrophoresis and free light chain ratio / $c D. Zeman, M. Štork, L. Švancarová, M. Borský, M. Pospíšilová, Z. Adam, M. Beňovská, L. Pour
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND: Isoelectric focusing (IEF) is a method with an exquisite resolution, and coupled with affinity immunoblotting (AIB), it can provide superior sensitivity to detect monoclonal free light chains (FLC). METHODS: We tested the hypothesis that IEF/AIB is more sensitive and specific for monoclonal FLC detection in serum and urine samples than conventional methods, that is, electrophoresis (ELP), immunofixation (IF) and serum FLC ratio assessment. Investigation included 107 samples of 68 patients, among which 21 multiple myeloma patients were recently tested for minimal residual disease and 18 patients with AL amyloidosis. RESULTS: Monoclonal FLC were detected by IEF/AIB in 37% of serum samples negative for monoclonal FLC on ELP/IF. As for urine samples, significant advantage of the IEF/AIB over ELP/IF was not demonstrated. Considering both serum and urine results, IEF/AIB definitely revealed monoclonal FLC in 20/83 (24%) of ELP/IF-negative samples. FLC ratio was abnormally high (>1.65) in all 11 patients definitely positive for monoclonal FLC kappa by IEF/AIB but also in 16/47 (34%) IEF/AIB-negative samples. Abnormally low values (<0.26) were found only in 10/28 samples (36%) positive for monoclonal FLC lambda. Appropriate use of renal FLC ratio reference range reduced the number of presumably false positives (6/47, i.e. 13%) but not false negatives (17/28, i.e. 61%). CONCLUSIONS: The IEF/AIB method is more sensitive than IF and might be used in patients with negative IF results before deciding whether to proceed to minimal residual disease testing.
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    12
$a lehké řetězce imunoglobulinů $x krev $x moč $7 D007147
650    12
$a isoelektrická fokusace $x metody $7 D007525
650    12
$a paraproteinemie $x moč $x diagnóza $x krev $7 D010265
650    _2
$a imunoblotting $x metody $7 D015151
650    _2
$a imunoelektroforéza $x metody $7 D007122
650    _2
$a senioři $7 D000368
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    _2
$a mnohočetný myelom $x moč $x krev $7 D009101
650    _2
$a senzitivita a specificita $7 D012680
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
700    1_
$a Štork, Martin $u Department of Internal Medicine, Haematology and Oncology, University Hospital Brno and Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Švancarová, Lenka $u Department of Laboratory Methods, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Borský, Marek $u Department of Internal Medicine, Haematology and Oncology, University Hospital Brno and Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Pospíšilová, Michaela $u Department of Laboratory Medicine, Division of Clinical Biochemistry, University Hospital Brno, Brno, Czech Republic $u Department of Laboratory Methods, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Adam, Zdeněk $u Department of Internal Medicine, Haematology and Oncology, University Hospital Brno and Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Beňovská, Miroslava $u Department of Laboratory Medicine, Division of Clinical Biochemistry, University Hospital Brno, Brno, Czech Republic $u Department of Laboratory Methods, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Pour, Luděk $u Department of Internal Medicine, Haematology and Oncology, University Hospital Brno and Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
773    0_
$w MED00000421 $t Annals of clinical biochemistry $x 1758-1001 $g Roč. 61, č. 4 (2024), s. 291-302
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38073192 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
990    __
$a 20241015 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20241024110818 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 2202280 $s 1231927
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2024 $b 61 $c 4 $d 291-302 $e 20240207 $i 1758-1001 $m Annals of clinical biochemistry $n Ann Clin Biochem $x MED00000421
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20241015

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Nahrávání dat ...

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...