BACKGROUND: Serum free light chain analysis is now well established in the investigation of monoclonal gammopathies. In the UK there has, until recently, been a single supplier of kits for such analysis. Recently, a second method using monoclonal antisera was introduced. We have compared the performance of these two kits in four routine laboratories. METHOD: Samples submitted for routine analysis (327 samples, 258 [79%] from patients with B-cell lymphoproliferative disease) for serum free light chains were tested by both technologies (Freelite, Binding Site and N Latex FLC, Siemens), according to the manufacturers' instructions. RESULTS: Qualitative data were available by both methods on 313 samples for serum free kappa chains and 324 samples for lambda free light chains. We found poor correspondence of 81% for kappa and 74% for lambda. Five percent of samples were significantly discordant in these assays. CONCLUSIONS: These assays perform very differently in clinical practice. They cannot be used interchangeably, especially if monitoring patient responses to therapy.
BACKGROUND: Serum free light chain analysis is now well established in the investigation of monoclonal gammopathies. In the UK there has, until recently, been a single supplier of kits for such analysis. Recently, a second method using monoclonal antisera was introduced. We have compared the performance of these two kits in four routine laboratories. METHOD: Samples submitted for routine analysis (327 samples, 258 [79%] from patients with B-cell lymphoproliferative disease) for serum free light chains were tested by both technologies (Freelite, Binding Site and N Latex FLC, Siemens), according to the manufacturers' instructions. RESULTS: Qualitative data were available by both methods on 313 samples for serum free kappa chains and 324 samples for lambda free light chains. We found poor correspondence of 81% for kappa and 74% for lambda. Five percent of samples were significantly discordant in these assays. CONCLUSIONS: These assays perform very differently in clinical practice. They cannot be used interchangeably, especially if monitoring patient responses to therapy.
Authors: Giovanni Cigliana; Eleonora Torti; Francesca Gulli; Elena De Santis; Maria Teresa Dell'Abate; Luigi Colacicco; Francesco Pisani; Laura Conti; Umberto Basile Journal: J Exp Clin Cancer Res Date: 2015-04-23