-
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
Jazyk angličtina Země Anglie, Velká Británie
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, srovnávací studie
- MeSH
- imunoblotting metody MeSH
- imunoelektroforéza metody MeSH
- isoelektrická fokusace * metody MeSH
- lehké řetězce imunoglobulinů * krev moč MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mnohočetný myelom moč krev MeSH
- paraproteinemie * moč diagnóza krev MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- senzitivita a specificita MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- srovnávací studie MeSH
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