Performance Evaluation of Serum Free Light Chain Analysis: Nephelometry vs Turbidimetry, Monoclonal vs Polyclonal Reagents.
other · Level V
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 28575180.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1093/ajcp/aqx037.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
Free light chain (FLC) measurement gained a lot of interest for diagnostic workup of monoclonal gammopathy. We evaluated the performance of turbidimetric polyclonal Freelite (The Binding Site, Birmingham, UK) assays on Cobas 6000 (Roche Diagnostics, Rotkreuz, Switzerland) and nephelometric monoclonal N Latex (Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Marburg, Germany) assays on BN ProSpec (Dade Behring, Deerfield, IL) vs established nephelometric Freelite assays on BN ProSpec. Analytical performance was acceptable. Method comparison (n = 118) showed significant proportional FLC differences for N Latex assays. However, good correlation and clinical concordance were shown. Recovery study in the low concentration range demonstrated consistent over- and underrecovery for Freelite reagents, hampering future research on prognostic value of suppressed noninvolved FLC. Antigen excess detection was successful for κ FLC in three-fourths of cases with Freelite reagents and in all cases with N Latex reagents. However, the latter resulted in underestimated κ FLC concentrations. FLC analysis requires continuous awareness of analytical limitations. Monitoring of disease response requires FLC analysis on the same platform using the same reagents.
Medical subject headings
- Immunoglobulin Light Chains
- Immunoglobulin kappa-Chains
- Immunoglobulin lambda-Chains
- Nephelometry and Turbidimetry
- Paraproteinemias