Giovanni Cigliana1, Francesca Gulli2, Cecilia Napodano2, Krizia Pocino2, Elena De Santis1, Luigi Colacicco3, Iole Cordone4, Laura Conti1, Umberto Basile2. 1. Laboratory of Clinical Pathology, National Cancer Institute "Regina Elena", Rome, Italy. 2. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy. 3. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Institute of Biochemistry, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy. 4. Oncoematology, Clinical Pathology, National Cancer Institute "Regina Elena", Rome, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Serum free light chains detection assays are consistently meeting greater interest for the diagnosis and monitoring of monoclonal gammopathies and plasma cell dyscrasias. Nowadays, there are neither standardized methods nor reference material for the determination of free light chains; for this reason, it is important to compare two different assays used in clinical laboratory. METHODS: We evaluated 300 serum samples from patients with B-cell disorders and compared the analytical performances of both assay. Each test was assayed on both testing platforms (Siemens Dade Behring BN II Nephelometer and SPAPLUS by The Binding Site). κ/λ ratios were determined and compared. Results were analyzed by Passing-Bablok and Bland-Altman plots to evaluate comparability of the two techniques and to determine bias. RESULTS: The reproducibility of both assays is acceptable, reaching minimum and desirable analytical goals derived from biological variability. However, values are not interchangeable between systems. This study shows that the two systems do not allow results to be transferred from one method to the other even if they display good agreement. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights the importance of elaborating an international standard for free light chains quantification in order to offer homogeneous results as well as guarantee harmonization of values among laboratories. Moreover, the assays should be validated in specific patient groups to determine that they are clinically fit for purpose.
BACKGROUND: Serum free light chains detection assays are consistently meeting greater interest for the diagnosis and monitoring of monoclonal gammopathies and plasma cell dyscrasias. Nowadays, there are neither standardized methods nor reference material for the determination of free light chains; for this reason, it is important to compare two different assays used in clinical laboratory. METHODS: We evaluated 300 serum samples from patients with B-cell disorders and compared the analytical performances of both assay. Each test was assayed on both testing platforms (Siemens Dade Behring BN II Nephelometer and SPAPLUS by The Binding Site). κ/λ ratios were determined and compared. Results were analyzed by Passing-Bablok and Bland-Altman plots to evaluate comparability of the two techniques and to determine bias. RESULTS: The reproducibility of both assays is acceptable, reaching minimum and desirable analytical goals derived from biological variability. However, values are not interchangeable between systems. This study shows that the two systems do not allow results to be transferred from one method to the other even if they display good agreement. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights the importance of elaborating an international standard for free light chains quantification in order to offer homogeneous results as well as guarantee harmonization of values among laboratories. Moreover, the assays should be validated in specific patient groups to determine that they are clinically fit for purpose.
Authors: Henk te Velthuis; Ingrid Knop; Peter Stam; Monic van den Broek; Hannie Klaasse Bos; Suzanne Hol; Elisa Teunissen; Karin Schulte Fischedick; Harald Althaus; Brigitta Schmidt; Carola Wagner; Roel Melsert Journal: Clin Chem Lab Med Date: 2011-06-10 Impact factor: 3.694
Authors: Giuseppe Di Noto; Elena Cimpoies; Alessandra Dossi; Lucia Paolini; Annalisa Radeghieri; Luigi Caimi; Doris Ricotta Journal: Ann Clin Biochem Date: 2014-09-15 Impact factor: 2.057
Authors: Kenneth C Anderson; Melissa Alsina; Djordje Atanackovic; J Sybil Biermann; Jason C Chandler; Caitlin Costello; Benjamin Djulbegovic; Henry C Fung; Cristina Gasparetto; Kelly Godby; Craig Hofmeister; Leona Holmberg; Sarah Holstein; Carol Ann Huff; Adetola Kassim; Amrita Y Krishnan; Shaji K Kumar; Michaela Liedtke; Matthew Lunning; Noopur Raje; Frederic J Reu; Seema Singhal; George Somlo; Keith Stockerl-Goldstein; Steven P Treon; Donna Weber; Joachim Yahalom; Dorothy A Shead; Rashmi Kumar Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: S Vincent Rajkumar; Meletios A Dimopoulos; Antonio Palumbo; Joan Blade; Giampaolo Merlini; María-Victoria Mateos; Shaji Kumar; Jens Hillengass; Efstathios Kastritis; Paul Richardson; Ola Landgren; Bruno Paiva; Angela Dispenzieri; Brendan Weiss; Xavier LeLeu; Sonja Zweegman; Sagar Lonial; Laura Rosinol; Elena Zamagni; Sundar Jagannath; Orhan Sezer; Sigurdur Y Kristinsson; Jo Caers; Saad Z Usmani; Juan José Lahuerta; Hans Erik Johnsen; Meral Beksac; Michele Cavo; Hartmut Goldschmidt; Evangelos Terpos; Robert A Kyle; Kenneth C Anderson; Brian G M Durie; Jesus F San Miguel Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-10-26 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: John P Campbell; Jennifer L J Heaney; Meena Shemar; Dene Baldwin; Ann E Griffin; Emma Oldridge; Margaret Goodall; Zaheer Afzal; Tim Plant; Mark Cobbold; Roy Jefferis; Joannes F M Jacobs; Christopher Hand; Mark T Drayson Journal: Clin Chem Lab Med Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 3.694
Authors: R J Lock; R Saleem; E G Roberts; M J Wallage; T J Pesce; A Rowbottom; S J Cooper; E D McEvoy; J L Taylor; S Basu Journal: Ann Clin Biochem Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 2.057
Authors: Jenny Bird; Judith Behrens; Jan Westin; Ingemar Turesson; Mark Drayson; Robert Beetham; Shirley D'Sa; Richard Soutar; Anders Waage; Nina Gulbrandsen; Henrik Gregersen; Eric Low Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2009-08-10 Impact factor: 6.998